NCJ Number
79125
Date Published
1977
Length
14 pages
Annotation
This paper tests the hypothesis that the effect of victim history upon judgment of seriousness of rape is a direct one rather than one mediated by judgments as to the likelihood of consent by the woman.
Abstract
A total of 650 students in day and evening classes at a 4-year college near Philadelphia were given a simulated newspaper story to read. The story was headlined 'Jury Convicts in Rape Trial.' There were 10 versions of the story, half corroborated and half uncorroborated, with 4 different accounts of the history of the woman and her past relationship with the man. The main dependent variable measure was the recommended prison sentence for the convicted rapist, on a scale ranging from 1-50 years, with additional provision for sentences in months and for probation. Subjects were administered a questionnaire during classes; all conditions were represented in all administrations, and subjects were randomly assigned to conditions. Results showed that no significant differences existed in the sentences recommended for corroborated and noncorroborated cases, but the main effect for history was significant, as was the effect for sex. The results supported the hypothesis that the relationship between victim and rapist and any prior consensual intercourse on the part of the victim result in a redefinition of the crime as being of a lower magnitude, and that this effect is a direct one rather than one mediated by judgments about the probability of consensual versus forced intercourse in ambiguous cases. Male subjects tended to recommend reduced sentences in all conditions where the rapist and victim were not strangers. Female subjects recommended sentences proportional to the extent of the previous relationship and the extent of any consensual previous intercourse. Tables and 11 references are included.