Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-dwq4g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-28T03:27:25.093Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rape Law Reform and Instrumental Change in Six Urban Jurisdictions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2024

Julie Horney  and
Cassia Spohn
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Concerns about the treatment of rape victims and attrition in rape cases prompted a nationwide movement to reform state rape laws. In this study we evaluate the impact of rape law reforms on reports of rape and the processing of rape cases in six urban jurisdictions—Detroit, Chicago, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Houston, and Washington, D.C. Our results strongly suggest that the ability of rape reform legislation to affect case outcomes is limited. Time-series analyses revealed that predicted results were found in only one of the six jurisdictions, and there the results were limited.

Type
Research Article
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 25 , Issue 1 , 1991 , pp. 117 - 153
Copyright
Copyright © 1991 by The Law and Society Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

This mansucript is based on work supported by the National Institute of Justice under Grant No. SES 8508323 and by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 85-IJ-CX-0048. Points of view are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the position of the U.S. Department of Justice or the National Science Foundation.

Numerous people made important contributions to this research effort over a period of several years. We would especially like to thank our project associates who supervised the data collection at the study sites: James Gibson, University of Houston; Kathryn Newcomer, George Washington University; Karen O'Connor, Emory University; Joseph Peterson, University of Illinois at Chicago; and David Rauma, University of Michigan. We would also like to thank our data collectors, who coded data on thousands of cases from court records.

References

References

BATTELLE MEMORIAL INSTITUTE LAW AND JUSTICE STUDY CENTER (1977) Forcible Rape: Final Project Report. National Institute on Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
BERGER, Ronald J., Patricia, SEARLES, and W. Lawrence, NEUMAN (1988) “The Dimensions of Rape Reform Legislation,” 22 Law & Society Review 329.Google Scholar
BERGER, Vivian (1977) “Man's Trial, Woman's Tribulation: Rape Cases in the Courtroom,” 77 Columbia Law Review 1.Google Scholar
BOHMER, Carol (1974) “Judicial Attitudes Toward Rape Victims,” 57 Judicature 303.Google Scholar
CAMPBELL, Donald T., and Julian C., STANLEY (1966) Experimental and Quasi-experimental Designs for Research. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
CARINGELLA-MacDONALD, Susan (1984) “Sexual Assault Prosecution: An Examination of Model Rape Legislation in Michigan,” 4 Women and Politics 65.Google Scholar
CARTER, Lief (1974) The Limits of Order. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.Google Scholar
CASPER, Jonathan D., and David, BRERETON (1984) “Evaluating Criminal Justice Reforms,” 18 Law & Society Review 121.Google Scholar
CHURCH, Thomas W. Jr. (1976) “Plea Bargains, Concessions and the Courts: Analysis of a Quasi-Experiment,” 10 Law & Society Review 377.Google Scholar
COBB, Kenneth A., and Nancy R., SCHAUER (1974) “Legislative Note: Michigan's Criminal Sexual Assault Law,” 8 University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform 217.76.Google Scholar
EISENSTEIN, James, FLEMMING, Roy B., and Peter F., NARDULLI (1988) The Contours of Justice: Communities and Their Courts. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
EISENSTEIN, James, and Herbert, JACOB (1977) Felony Justice: An Organizational Analysis of Criminal Courts. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
ESTRICH, Susan (1987) Real Rape. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
FEELEY, Malcolm M. (1979) The Process Is the Punishment: Handling Cases in a Lower Criminal Court. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
FEILD, Hubert S., and Leigh B., BIENEN (1980) Jurors and Rape: A Study in Psychology and Law. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
FELDMAN-SUMMERS, Shirley, and Karen, LINDNER (1976) “Perceptions of Victims and Defendants in Criminal Assault Cases,” 3 Criminal Justice and Behavior 135.Google Scholar
GALVIN, Harriet R. (1986) “Shielding Rape Victims in the State and Federal Courts: A Proposal for the Second Decade,” 70 Minnesota Law Review 763.Google Scholar
GILCHRIST, Karen, and Julie, HORNEY (1980) “Assessing the Impact of Changes in the Nebraska Rape Statutes: Effect on Prosecution.” Presented at the annual meeting of the Western Society of Criminology, Newport Beach, CA.Google Scholar
HEUMANN, Milton, and Colin, LOFTIN (1979) “Mandatory Sentencing and the Abolition of Plea Bargaining: The Michigan Felony Firearm Statute,” 13 Law & Society Review 393.Google Scholar
HOLMSTROM, Lynda Lytle, and Ann Wolbert, BURGESS (1975) “Rape: The Victim and the Criminal Justice System,” 3 International Journal of Criminology and Penology 101.Google Scholar
HOLMSTROM, Lynda Lytle, and Ann Wolbert, BURGESS (1978) The Victim of Rape: Institutional Reactions. New York: Wiley-Interscience.Google Scholar
IRELAND, Marilyn J. (1978) “Rape Reform Legislation: A New Standard of Sexual Responsibility,” 49 University of Colorado Law Review 185.Google Scholar
KALVEN, Harry, and Hans, ZEISEL (1966) The American Jury. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
LaFREE, Gary D. (1980) “Variables Affecting Guilty Pleas and Convictions in Rape Cases: Toward a Social Theory of Rape Processing,” 58 Social Forces 833.Google Scholar
LaFREE, Gary D. (1981) “Official Reactions to Social Problems: Police Decisions in Sexual Assault Cases,” 28 Social Problems 582.Google Scholar
LaFREE, Gary D. (1989) Rape and Criminal Justice: The Social Construction of Sexual Assault. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
LARGEN, Mary Ann (1988) “Rape-Law Reform: An Analysis,” in Burgess, A. W. (ed.), Rape and Sexual Assault II. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
LOFTIN, Colin, Milton, HEUMANN, and McDOWALL, David (1983) “Mandatory Sentencing and Firearms Violence: Evaluating an Alternative to Gun Control,” 17 Law & Society Review 287.Google Scholar
LOH, Wallace D. (1980) “The Impact of Common Law and Reform Rape Statutes on Prosecution: An Empirical Study” 55 Washington Law Review 543.Google Scholar
MARSH, Jeanne C., Alison, GEIST, and Nathan, CAPLAN (1982) Rape and the Limits of Law Reform. Boston: Auburn House.Google Scholar
MATHER, Lynn M. (1974) “Some Determinants of the Method of Case Disposition: Decision-Making by Public Defenders in Los Angeles,” 8 Law & Society Review 187.Google Scholar
McCAHILL, Thomas W., MEYER, Linda C., and Arthur M., FISCHMAN (1979) The Aftermath of Rape. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
McCLEARY, Richard, and Richard A., HAY (1980) Applied Time Series Analysis for the Social Sciences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publishing.Google Scholar
NIMMER, Raymond T. (1977) “The System Impact of Criminal Justice Reforms,” in Tapp, J. L. and Levine, F. J. (eds.), Law, Justice, and the Individual in Society: Psychological and Legal Issues. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
NIMMER, Raymond T. (1978) The Nature of System Change: Reform Impact in the Criminal Courts. Chicago: American Bar Foundation.Google Scholar
NIMMER, Raymond T., and Patricia Ann, KRAUTHAUS (1977) “Plea Bargaining: Reform in Two Cities,” 3 Justice System Journal 6.Google Scholar
POLK, Kenneth (1985) “Rape Reform and Criminal Justice Processing,” 31 Crime and Delinquency 191.Google Scholar
RESKIN, Barbara F., and Christy A., VISHER (1986) “The Impacts of Evidence and Extralegal Factors in Jurors' Decisions,” 20 Law & Society Review 423.Google Scholar
ROBIN, Gerald D. (1982) “Forcible Rape: Institutionalized Sexism in the Criminal Justice System,” in Price, B. R. and Sokoloff, N. J. (eds.), The Criminal Justice System and Women: Offenders, Victims, Workers. New York: Clark Boardman.Google Scholar
ROSS, H. Laurence, and James P., FOLEY (1987) “Judicial Disobedience of the Mandate to Imprison Drunk Drivers,” 21 Law & Society Review 315.Google Scholar
SASKO, Helene, and Deborah, SESEK (1975) “Rape Reform Legislation: Is It the Solution?” 24 Cleveland State Law Review 463.Google Scholar
SPOHN, Cassia, and Julie, HORNEY (1991) “‘The Law's the Law, But Fair Is Fair’: Rape Shield Laws and Officials' Assessments of Sexual History Evidence,” 29 Criminology 137.Google Scholar
SUDNOW, David (1965) “Normal Crimes: Sociological Features of the Penal Code in a Public Defender Office,” 12 Social Problems 255.Google Scholar
VERA INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE (1981) Felony Arrests: Their Prosecution and Disposition in New York City's Courts. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
WEDDINGTON, Sarah (1975–76) “Rape Law in Texas: H.B. 284 and the Road to Reform,” 4 American Journal of Criminal Law 1.Google Scholar

Statute Cited

Texas Penal Code Ann. sec. 21.02 (Supp. 1980).Google Scholar