Justifying Injustice: How the Criminal Justice System Explains Its Response to Sexual Assault

Background and Purpose: Sexual assault is a pervasive crime leading to myriad detrimental physical and psychological health problems for the victim. Post-assault, victims may choose to report the crime to the criminal justice system which consists of two interrelated, yet distinct stages: the investigation stage, carried out by police, and the prosecution stage, carried out by the prosecutor’s office. However, most sexual assaults do not transition from investigation to prosecution and instead fall out of the criminal justice system while under the purview of law enforcement. Indeed, the law enforcement response to sexual assault has been highlighted by popular press in recent years by showcasing the abundance of untested sexual assault forensic evidence across the country. Prior literature suggests that police conduct less-than-thorough investigations and do not refer cases to the prosecutor’s office because they endorse rape myths concerning what qualifies as ‘real’ rape and who can be raped. Prior research has only documented police attitudes towards rape via questionnaires and has not examined how rape myths are observed in actual sexual assault case investigations. Guided by social dominance theory, the current project first documented the extent and types of rape myths observed in police records of actual sexual assault case investigations. Then, the current project examined the relationships between the different types of rape myths endorsed with the investigative response so as to determine if rape myths are used by police to justify their action and inaction in sexual assault case investigations.

Methods: The police records of N=248 sexual assault cases corresponding to a random sample of unsubmitted sexual assault evidence collection kits (SAKs) found in a police property storage facility in 2009 were examined. Qualitative methods, including directed and conventional content analysis, were used to document the extent and types of rape myths endorsed in police records. Quantitative methods, specifically path analysis, were then used to analyze the relationships between the different types of rape myths, investigatory effort, and case outcomes, within the context of specific social identity factors of the victim and perpetrator.

Results: Findings reveal that police drew upon traditional rape myths regarding (1) what qualifies as ‘real’ rape and (2) who can be raped in order to justify their response to sexual assault. Of particular interest was the identification of a third strategy used by police, in which they blamed the victim for law enforcement personnel’s inaction in sexual assault case investigations. This new strategy of blaming the victim for police inaction was particularly damaging to case progression in the criminal justice system.

Conclusions and Implications: Findings suggest that specific policy and practice changes related to sexual assault case investigation processes could increase the likelihood that a sexual assault case proceeds from the investigation to the prosecution stage within the criminal justice system.  The future research agenda should emphasize evaluating the impact of recently-implemented policy and practice changes related to the criminal justice system response to sexual assault, giving particular attention to the necessary resources and infrastructure for their success.