True Colors: Police Officers and Rape Myth Acceptance

Institutionally, significant advancements in rape law reform have occurred. Culturally, police officers sometimes fail to adopt these changes. A survey designed to assess acceptance of rape myths was administered to 891 police officers in two southeastern states. The study found that the majority of police officers view the overall crime of rape as a serious one, however, approximately 6% provided sexist feedback that supports rape myths. These findings indicate that more work is needed in altering the attitudes of police officers. This article provides a description of the goals of rape law reforms, reviews research assessing the effectiveness of the reforms, and provides a measure of police officers’ attitudes toward the crime of rape and its victims. Several scholars (Spears & Spohn, 1996; Spohn, 1999; Spohn, Beichner, & Davis-Frenzel, 2001; Spohn & Horney, 1993, 1996) have contributed a notable body of research to the evaluation of the reforms by investigating the prosecutorial level of the criminal justice system. This research suggests that police officers may not fully embrace these changes. A BRIEF HISTORY OF RAPE LAWS IN THE UNITED STATES Myths that blame women for sexual victimization, while excusing male behavior, have informed law and social policies regarding sexual violence. Historically, rape laws were enacted to protect the property rights of men (Bergen, 1996; Sheffield, 1998). Women were seen as property, as evidenced by the giving of a dowry at marriage. As such, rape was a crime against the husband or betrothed rather than against the woman. If a rape victim was unmarried, the rapist had to compensate her father for the violation since his daughter was now considered “damaged goods” and no man would want her (Sheffield, 1998). Until 1977, husbands were able to sexually assault their wives with no repercussions.[1] Legally, a wife could not be raped, since she was already willingly engaged in a sexual relationship with her husband. Although laws have changed, this attitude persists (Bergen, 1996). It is also the case that many still think of sexual violence as exclusively a heterosexual act, involving penile-vaginal intercourse. Violence is either downplayed or ignored altogether (Brownmiller, 1975; Sheffield, 1998). Moreover, the absence of consent to sexual activity that defines all sexual assaults—not just penile-vaginal intercourse—is ignored (Box, 1984). In addition, some adhere to the concept of “victimprecipitated” rape, where the victim’s behavior, “through acts of commission (e.g., she agreed to drink or ride with a stranger) and omission (e.g., she failed to react strongly enough to sexual suggestions and overtures),” leads to rape (Amir, 1971, p. 261). This belief appears to persist within the criminal justice system as well as the general public. Frazier and Haney (1996) found, for example, that stranger rapists were more likely to receive prison sentences, and longer sentences, than those who committed acquaintance rape. Other researchers have found similar results, indicating that stranger rapes that fit the stereotype of “real” rapes are more likely to be processed through the criminal justice system (Bachman & Paternoster, 1993; Caringella, 2008; Horney & Spohn, 1991; Spohn & Horney, 1992). Feminists and rape law reform supporters have long sought to require formal training for police officers in how to deal with victims of sexual assault, to ensure they are not revictimized in the process of reporting their rape. Rape crisis workers noted that victims were often traumatized throughout the criminal justice process, and that this likely discouraged some victims from reporting their rape. Reformers believed that training police officers on how to question rape victims in a more sensitive manner would facilitate more victims coming forward (Bachman, 1993; Lonsway, Welch, & Fitzgerald, 2001). In most states, laws concerning sexual violence have been rewritten in genderneutral language. That is, the law now allows for female perpetrators and male victims. This is important because in a culture that socializes men to be hypersexual, it is often difficult to imagine a man being forced to have sex. After all, it is culturally mandated that men are supposed to be “ready and willing” whenever an opportunity arises (Russell, 1975). Changes in rape law have not resulted in rejection of rape myths. Attitudes must also be targeted for change. Feminist scholars and activists launched a campaign in the mid-1970s to alter the way society and members of the criminal justice system view and treat the crime of rape and rape victims. These efforts and criticisms of traditional rape laws led to the reform of existing rape laws. Rape crisis centers also began to appear across the United States during the 1970s. The centers provide support and counseling programs for sexual assault victims and staff sometimes accompany victims throughout the medical and legal processes. Rape crisis staff and volunteers, along with local and national women’s organizations also sought to alter the way rape was viewed and treated within the criminal justice system (Caringella, 2008; Schulhofer, 1988). Griffin (1971) and Brownmiller (1975) were two of the earliest feminist scholars to analyze the treatment of rape by the criminal justice system. They focused attention on stereotyped evaluations of rape victims as “good” or “bad” women made by police and prosecutors. They noted that police and prosecutors often believed a victim was making a false complaint and blamed her for provoking the rape. Furthermore, they found that if a case went to trial, defense attorneys often subjected victims to humiliating testimony regarding their sexual history. Any prior sexual behavior was considered to be untrustworthy. Brownmiller noted, While a woman’s past sexual history may be trotted out for a jury’s appraisal, a man’s relevant sexual history, including prior charges and convictions for rape, may not be introduced in evidence if he does not take the witness stand. And so, a jury might see before them a sexually active woman and be told that her sexual activity reflects on her character and credibility, but the man may not be similarly examined or judged. (p. 372) Feminist activists, legal scholars, and social scientists questioned the motives and purpose of traditional rape laws, whose focus was on the victim of the attack rather than on the offender who committed the crime (Brownmiller, 1975; Estrich, 1987; Griffin, 1971; MacKinnon, 1989; Schulhofer, 1988). The criminal justice system was more concerned with the victim’s behavior at the time of the attack: for example, how intensely she tried to fight off her attacker, what she was wearing, and whether she had been drinking or using drugs. Critics of traditional rape law believed that this intense focus on the victim was unique to rape and pointed to the rules of evidence (i.e., corroboration, verbally uttering “no,” physical injuries) that institutionalized victim blaming. Many were also critical of the definition of rape, which was limited to unmarried women and to the single act of penile-vaginal intercourse. They believed that the limited definitions of rape and the intense focus on the victim dissuaded reporting of rape (Bachman & Paternoster, 1993; Horney & Spohn, 1991; Schulhofer, 1988; Spohn, 1999; Spohn & Horney, 1992). Brownmiller (1975) and MacKinnon (1989) noted that rape laws actually protected male offenders rather than female victims. Brownmiller called rape “nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear” (p. 15). Rape laws outline expectations for “proper” female behavior and even limited the type of force that could be considered criminal. For example, coercion or threatened physical force (without the presence of a weapon) to secure sex was not considered criminal. Furthermore, these laws increased women’s dependence on men as protectors; thereby reinforcing men’s social power and domination as a class, that is, women who choose to walk alone at night are blamed for their own victimization. Reformers believed that by altering the legal definition of rape and the subsequent treatment of victims by the criminal justice system, an increase in reporting, prosecution, and convictions for rape would occur (Bachman & Paternoster, 1993; Spohn, 1999; Spohn & Horney, 1992).