警察强奸研究中的女权主义、权力和政治:是时候进行范式转变了

IF 1.7 Q2 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY
Sophie Geoghegan-Fittall, Tina Skinner, B. Stanko
{"title":"警察强奸研究中的女权主义、权力和政治:是时候进行范式转变了","authors":"Sophie Geoghegan-Fittall, Tina Skinner, B. Stanko","doi":"10.1332/239868021x16425827326483","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Over the last 40 years, academics, activists and policymakers have attempted to improve police and criminal justice (CJ) responses to rape, yet attrition in rape cases continues to rise (ONS, 2021). Rape attrition studies have increasingly scrutinised the CJ process, initially in smaller scale, local research (for example, Lees and Gregory, 1993) and more recently through national analysis of the CJ outcomes of police reported cases (for example, ONS, 2021). While this has greatly enhanced understanding of why cases may drop out, the focus has increasingly been on explaining attrition in the hope of improving CJ outcomes, rather than victim-survivors’ voices and what they want from the process. Similarly, to explore attrition at the police stage, surveys have been undertaken with officers to understand their attitudes, including rape myth acceptance (for example, Sleath and Bull, 2012); again, with a focus on improving substantive CJ outcomes. In this article we call for researchers, activists and policymakers to pause and reflect upon the political and ideological reasons behind a focus on particular research questions using particular methodologies; and whether there is a need for more victim-survivor centred, indeed person-centred, research and practice where the focus is more on procedural justice rather than substantive justice.Key messagesAnalysis of case files has indicated where rape and sexual assault cases drop out of the criminal justice system from reporting through to potential conviction, with most cases dropping out at the police phase (for example, Hester, 2013).Surveys explore rape myth acceptance among police officers’ (for example, Sleath and Bull, 2012).While some of these studies are mixed methods (for example, Kelly et al, 2005; Hester, 2013), the majority are quantitative and focused on substantive justice outcomes.What gains less attention in policing rape research is whether victim-survivors gain procedural justice within the criminal justice process, including fairness of treatment and attention to wellbeing.The impacts of being a police officer working with rape cases, in terms of burnout and staff welfare, has started to gain some attention (Foley and Massey, 2020) and potential impacts of this on the victim-survivor is starting to be evidenced (Anglioni, 2015).What is needed is to rethink what the CJS should be focused on and what research should be focused on: to move from a focus on substantive justice outcomes to procedural justice and person-centred practice.","PeriodicalId":42166,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Gender-Based Violence","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Feminism, power and politics in policing rape research: time for a paradigm shift\",\"authors\":\"Sophie Geoghegan-Fittall, Tina Skinner, B. Stanko\",\"doi\":\"10.1332/239868021x16425827326483\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Over the last 40 years, academics, activists and policymakers have attempted to improve police and criminal justice (CJ) responses to rape, yet attrition in rape cases continues to rise (ONS, 2021). Rape attrition studies have increasingly scrutinised the CJ process, initially in smaller scale, local research (for example, Lees and Gregory, 1993) and more recently through national analysis of the CJ outcomes of police reported cases (for example, ONS, 2021). While this has greatly enhanced understanding of why cases may drop out, the focus has increasingly been on explaining attrition in the hope of improving CJ outcomes, rather than victim-survivors’ voices and what they want from the process. Similarly, to explore attrition at the police stage, surveys have been undertaken with officers to understand their attitudes, including rape myth acceptance (for example, Sleath and Bull, 2012); again, with a focus on improving substantive CJ outcomes. In this article we call for researchers, activists and policymakers to pause and reflect upon the political and ideological reasons behind a focus on particular research questions using particular methodologies; and whether there is a need for more victim-survivor centred, indeed person-centred, research and practice where the focus is more on procedural justice rather than substantive justice.Key messagesAnalysis of case files has indicated where rape and sexual assault cases drop out of the criminal justice system from reporting through to potential conviction, with most cases dropping out at the police phase (for example, Hester, 2013).Surveys explore rape myth acceptance among police officers’ (for example, Sleath and Bull, 2012).While some of these studies are mixed methods (for example, Kelly et al, 2005; Hester, 2013), the majority are quantitative and focused on substantive justice outcomes.What gains less attention in policing rape research is whether victim-survivors gain procedural justice within the criminal justice process, including fairness of treatment and attention to wellbeing.The impacts of being a police officer working with rape cases, in terms of burnout and staff welfare, has started to gain some attention (Foley and Massey, 2020) and potential impacts of this on the victim-survivor is starting to be evidenced (Anglioni, 2015).What is needed is to rethink what the CJS should be focused on and what research should be focused on: to move from a focus on substantive justice outcomes to procedural justice and person-centred practice.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42166,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Gender-Based Violence\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Gender-Based Violence\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1332/239868021x16425827326483\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Gender-Based Violence","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1332/239868021x16425827326483","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在过去的40年里,学者、活动家和政策制定者一直试图改善警察和刑事司法(CJ)对强奸的反应,但强奸案的减员率继续上升(ONS, 2021)。强奸流失研究越来越多地审查了CJ程序,最初是在较小规模的地方研究中(例如,Lees和Gregory, 1993年),最近通过对警察报告案件的CJ结果的国家分析(例如,ONS, 2021年)。虽然这极大地提高了对为什么案件可能退出的理解,但焦点越来越多地集中在解释流失,以期改善CJ的结果,而不是受害者-幸存者的声音,以及他们想从这个过程中得到什么。同样,为了探索警察阶段的人员流失,对警官进行了调查,以了解他们的态度,包括对强奸神话的接受程度(例如,Sleath和Bull, 2012);同样,重点是改善实质性的CJ成果。在本文中,我们呼吁研究人员、活动家和政策制定者停下来,反思使用特定方法关注特定研究问题背后的政治和意识形态原因;是否需要更多以受害者-幸存者为中心,实际上以人为中心的研究和实践,更多地关注程序正义而不是实体正义。对案件档案的分析表明,强奸和性侵犯案件从报告到潜在定罪都被刑事司法系统排除在外,大多数案件在警察阶段就被排除在外(例如,Hester, 2013)。调查探讨了警察对强奸神话的接受程度(例如,Sleath和Bull, 2012)。虽然其中一些研究是混合方法(例如,Kelly等人,2005;Hester, 2013),大多数是定量的,专注于实质性司法结果。在监管强奸研究中较少受到关注的是,受害者-幸存者是否在刑事司法程序中获得了程序正义,包括公平的待遇和对福祉的关注。作为一名处理强奸案件的警察,在职业倦怠和工作人员福利方面的影响已经开始得到一些关注(Foley和Massey, 2020),这对受害者-幸存者的潜在影响也开始得到证明(Anglioni, 2015)。我们需要的是重新思考刑事司法委员会应该关注什么,研究应该关注什么:从关注实质性司法结果转向关注程序正义和以人为本的实践。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Feminism, power and politics in policing rape research: time for a paradigm shift
Over the last 40 years, academics, activists and policymakers have attempted to improve police and criminal justice (CJ) responses to rape, yet attrition in rape cases continues to rise (ONS, 2021). Rape attrition studies have increasingly scrutinised the CJ process, initially in smaller scale, local research (for example, Lees and Gregory, 1993) and more recently through national analysis of the CJ outcomes of police reported cases (for example, ONS, 2021). While this has greatly enhanced understanding of why cases may drop out, the focus has increasingly been on explaining attrition in the hope of improving CJ outcomes, rather than victim-survivors’ voices and what they want from the process. Similarly, to explore attrition at the police stage, surveys have been undertaken with officers to understand their attitudes, including rape myth acceptance (for example, Sleath and Bull, 2012); again, with a focus on improving substantive CJ outcomes. In this article we call for researchers, activists and policymakers to pause and reflect upon the political and ideological reasons behind a focus on particular research questions using particular methodologies; and whether there is a need for more victim-survivor centred, indeed person-centred, research and practice where the focus is more on procedural justice rather than substantive justice.Key messagesAnalysis of case files has indicated where rape and sexual assault cases drop out of the criminal justice system from reporting through to potential conviction, with most cases dropping out at the police phase (for example, Hester, 2013).Surveys explore rape myth acceptance among police officers’ (for example, Sleath and Bull, 2012).While some of these studies are mixed methods (for example, Kelly et al, 2005; Hester, 2013), the majority are quantitative and focused on substantive justice outcomes.What gains less attention in policing rape research is whether victim-survivors gain procedural justice within the criminal justice process, including fairness of treatment and attention to wellbeing.The impacts of being a police officer working with rape cases, in terms of burnout and staff welfare, has started to gain some attention (Foley and Massey, 2020) and potential impacts of this on the victim-survivor is starting to be evidenced (Anglioni, 2015).What is needed is to rethink what the CJS should be focused on and what research should be focused on: to move from a focus on substantive justice outcomes to procedural justice and person-centred practice.
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
2.80
自引率
20.00%
发文量
49
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信