刑事司法系统对强奸神话的接受:刑事司法决策者是否认可强奸神话?

IF 2.3 3区 心理学 Q1 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY
Sam Gavin,Rachel Kosaka,Makaylah D Bangura,Nathan E Kruis,Nicholas J Rowland
{"title":"刑事司法系统对强奸神话的接受:刑事司法决策者是否认可强奸神话?","authors":"Sam Gavin,Rachel Kosaka,Makaylah D Bangura,Nathan E Kruis,Nicholas J Rowland","doi":"10.1177/08862605251363618","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Rape myths, or false beliefs about rape and sexual assault, held by professionals in the American Criminal Justice System have contributed to reduced rates of sexual offense case reporting, biased investigative procedures, and the nonprosecution of offenders. Thus, Rape Myth Acceptance (RMA) has been considered by scholars to be a direct contributor to the under-sentencing or non-sentencing of perpetrators of sexual assault and rape. Prior research on RMA in the American Criminal Justice System has disproportionately focused on criminal justice students and law enforcement professionals. With the potential to influence victim reporting and rape case outcomes, an understanding of RMA held by actual decision-makers in all steps of the criminal-legal process is needed. This study extends prior research in this area by examining RMA among various criminal justice decision-makers, including police officers, prosecuting attorneys, and jurors, and comparing the RMA held by a sample of criminal justice decision-makers to that of a sample of the general public. Specifically, this study used data collected from a nationwide survey of criminal justice decision-makers (n = 228) and members of the general public (n = 865) to examine the presence and predictors of RMA. Findings reveal that, in the aggregate, while both samples held RMA scores indicative of nonacceptance of such attitudes, criminal justice decision-makers reported higher RMA than members of the general public, with younger males, more conservative-leaning respondents, and higher socioeconomically advantaged individuals holding the highest rates of RMA in both samples. Policy implications, limitations, and directions for future research based on these findings are discussed within.","PeriodicalId":16289,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Interpersonal Violence","volume":"32 1","pages":"8862605251363618"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Rape Myth Acceptance in the Criminal Justice System: Do Criminal Justice Decision-Makers Endorse Rape Myths?\",\"authors\":\"Sam Gavin,Rachel Kosaka,Makaylah D Bangura,Nathan E Kruis,Nicholas J Rowland\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/08862605251363618\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Rape myths, or false beliefs about rape and sexual assault, held by professionals in the American Criminal Justice System have contributed to reduced rates of sexual offense case reporting, biased investigative procedures, and the nonprosecution of offenders. Thus, Rape Myth Acceptance (RMA) has been considered by scholars to be a direct contributor to the under-sentencing or non-sentencing of perpetrators of sexual assault and rape. Prior research on RMA in the American Criminal Justice System has disproportionately focused on criminal justice students and law enforcement professionals. With the potential to influence victim reporting and rape case outcomes, an understanding of RMA held by actual decision-makers in all steps of the criminal-legal process is needed. This study extends prior research in this area by examining RMA among various criminal justice decision-makers, including police officers, prosecuting attorneys, and jurors, and comparing the RMA held by a sample of criminal justice decision-makers to that of a sample of the general public. Specifically, this study used data collected from a nationwide survey of criminal justice decision-makers (n = 228) and members of the general public (n = 865) to examine the presence and predictors of RMA. Findings reveal that, in the aggregate, while both samples held RMA scores indicative of nonacceptance of such attitudes, criminal justice decision-makers reported higher RMA than members of the general public, with younger males, more conservative-leaning respondents, and higher socioeconomically advantaged individuals holding the highest rates of RMA in both samples. Policy implications, limitations, and directions for future research based on these findings are discussed within.\",\"PeriodicalId\":16289,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Interpersonal Violence\",\"volume\":\"32 1\",\"pages\":\"8862605251363618\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Interpersonal Violence\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605251363618\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Interpersonal Violence","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605251363618","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

美国刑事司法系统的专业人员所持有的强奸神话,或对强奸和性侵犯的错误信念,导致了性犯罪案件报告率的降低,调查程序的偏见,以及对罪犯的不起诉。因此,学者们认为强奸神话接受(Rape Myth Acceptance, RMA)是导致性侵犯和强奸犯罪分子量刑不足或不量刑的直接原因。先前对美国刑事司法系统中军事革命的研究不成比例地集中在刑事司法学生和执法专业人员身上。由于有可能影响受害者的报告和强奸案件的结果,实际决策者在刑事法律程序的所有步骤中都需要了解军事干预。本研究扩展了先前在这一领域的研究,研究了各种刑事司法决策者(包括警察、检察官和陪审员)的RMA,并比较了刑事司法决策者样本与普通公众样本的RMA。具体而言,本研究使用了从全国刑事司法决策者(n = 228)和普通公众(n = 865)调查中收集的数据来检验军事干预的存在及其预测因素。研究结果表明,总体而言,虽然两个样本都持有表明不接受这种态度的RMA得分,但刑事司法决策者报告的RMA高于普通公众,年轻男性、更保守倾向的受访者和更高社会经济优势的个人在两个样本中都持有最高的RMA率。本文讨论了基于这些发现的政策含义、局限性和未来研究的方向。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Rape Myth Acceptance in the Criminal Justice System: Do Criminal Justice Decision-Makers Endorse Rape Myths?
Rape myths, or false beliefs about rape and sexual assault, held by professionals in the American Criminal Justice System have contributed to reduced rates of sexual offense case reporting, biased investigative procedures, and the nonprosecution of offenders. Thus, Rape Myth Acceptance (RMA) has been considered by scholars to be a direct contributor to the under-sentencing or non-sentencing of perpetrators of sexual assault and rape. Prior research on RMA in the American Criminal Justice System has disproportionately focused on criminal justice students and law enforcement professionals. With the potential to influence victim reporting and rape case outcomes, an understanding of RMA held by actual decision-makers in all steps of the criminal-legal process is needed. This study extends prior research in this area by examining RMA among various criminal justice decision-makers, including police officers, prosecuting attorneys, and jurors, and comparing the RMA held by a sample of criminal justice decision-makers to that of a sample of the general public. Specifically, this study used data collected from a nationwide survey of criminal justice decision-makers (n = 228) and members of the general public (n = 865) to examine the presence and predictors of RMA. Findings reveal that, in the aggregate, while both samples held RMA scores indicative of nonacceptance of such attitudes, criminal justice decision-makers reported higher RMA than members of the general public, with younger males, more conservative-leaning respondents, and higher socioeconomically advantaged individuals holding the highest rates of RMA in both samples. Policy implications, limitations, and directions for future research based on these findings are discussed within.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
12.00%
发文量
375
期刊介绍: The Journal of Interpersonal Violence is devoted to the study and treatment of victims and perpetrators of interpersonal violence. It provides a forum of discussion of the concerns and activities of professionals and researchers working in domestic violence, child sexual abuse, rape and sexual assault, physical child abuse, and violent crime. With its dual focus on victims and victimizers, the journal will publish material that addresses the causes, effects, treatment, and prevention of all types of violence. JIV only publishes reports on individual studies in which the scientific method is applied to the study of some aspect of interpersonal violence. Research may use qualitative or quantitative methods. JIV does not publish reviews of research, individual case studies, or the conceptual analysis of some aspect of interpersonal violence. Outcome data for program or intervention evaluations must include a comparison or control group.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信