 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5/08 ICIProj/Acc&Pres/ClRCMaIeDue.indd

 

 

CONSTRUCTING JUSTICE: HOW THE INTERACTIONS BETWEEN VICTIMS
AND DETECTIVES AFFECT THE QUALITY OF RAPE INVESTIGATIONS

By

Debra Ann Patterson

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Psychology

2008

ABSTRACT

CONSTRUCTING JUSTICE: HOW THE INTERACTIONS BETWEEN VICTIMS
AND DETECTIVES AFFECT THE QUALITY OF RAPE INVESTIGATIONS

By
Debra Ann Patterson

Prior research has documented that few reported rapes are prosecuted by the legal
system. In addition, studies suggest that some victims are treated by law enforcement in
ways that they experience as upsetting while others are not. The purpose of this study is
to explain how the interactions between victims and detectives can strengthen or weaken
the investigation itself. Twenty rape victims were interviewed to examine how law
enforcement detectives’ treatment of rape victims affects their engagement in the
investigational process.

Using grounded theory qualitative methodology, the results show that the
negative treatment by law enforcement detectives has a powerful role in determining
whether the case is ultimately prosecuted, or not. Detectives supporting the victim can
help produce stronger statements, and thus build a stronger case for prosecution and

prevent additional psychological distress.

For my parents, Lori Groppi and Richard Patterson for their love and support

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My work, as well as my life, has been blessed with many brilliant women who
must be thanked. Prior to my leap into academia, my life was graced with two wonderful
mentors who changed my life profoundly: Debbie McPeek and Sue Coats who taught me
to trust my instincts and to stand up for my convictions while being prepared for the price
of my stance. I am grateful everyday for having them in my life. I also would like to
thank two wonderful friends, Maria Penaranda Sheehy and Becki Verkest, for your
friendship and continual encouragement of pursuing my academic dreams.

I would like to thank my committee: Cris Sullivan, for her wisdom, humor, and
gentle reminders to stop taking life too seriously; Deb Bybee, for her continual support,
encouragement, and advice; and Merry Morash, for her support and sharing her expertise
on the criminal justice system. I cannot express enough my appreciation and thanks to
Rebecca Campbell, the chair of my committee, for generously providing me with many
meaningful opportunities to shape my development as a scholar; her patience through the
mountains of learning curves, her remarkable ability to teach complex concepts in
comprehensible ways; and her down-to-earth humorous nature that made my inner
advocate/activist feel at home.

In addition, many other individuals significantly contributed to the development
of this research: thank you to Giannina Cabral for her assistance with data collection; the
survivors who shared their stories and provided feedback; to the advocates who provided

feedback on the study findings; to Therese Tobin and Rebecca Oster for their insight into

iv

the legal system; and to Renae Diegel and Jamie Ferrell for their continual support,
encouragement, and sage advice throughout this project.

I would like to thank the ladies of suite 139 for making my time at Michigan State
University a wonderful experience that I will remember fondly: Megan Greeson (my
conﬁdant and partner in pranks), Adrienne Adams, Emily Dworkin, Kathleen Kelly,
Lauren Lichty, and Marisa Beeble.

I would like to thank my family for their love, encouragement, and support: my
mother, Lori Groppi, for continually standing by me regardless of the challenge; my
father, Richard Patterson, for supporting my dreams; my aunt, Shirley Grindling, for
always believing in me, Scott Patterson, for being my greatest friend in life; and my
nephew, Marcus Patterson, who always reminds me what is most important in life. There
are numerous other people who supported me during this process including Ed Groppi,

Steve and Sue Patterson, Arlene Leich, and Erika Carr.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................. viii
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................... ix
OVERVIEW ..................................................................................... 1
Literature Review ..................................................................... 3
Steps of rape case processing .................................................... 4
Rates of prosecuted cases ......................................................... 6
Rates of dropped cases... 7
Factors that predict prosecuted vs. non-prosecuted cases ..................... 8
Victim characteristics .......................................................... 8
Case Characteristics ........................................................... 11
Victims’ experiences with law enforcement .................................... 14
CURRENT STUDY ........................................................................... 21
Primary Research Aims 22
Research Questions ................................................................... 23
METHODS ...................................................................................... 26
Sample .................................................................................. 26
Prospective sampling of victims ............................................. 26
Community-based retrospective recruitment of victims .................. 27
Procedures .............................................................................. 29
Measures ............................................................................... 30
Data Analyses ........................................................................ 31
Data management .............................................................. 31
Grounded theory coding ...................................................... 32
Enhancing analytical rigor ................................................... 37
RESULTS ....................................................................................... 41
Research Question #1 : Case Antecedents ............................................ 41
Research Question #2: Victims Perceptions of Questioning ..................... 48
Pacing of questions ............................................................ 49
Compassion ..................................................................... 56
Communicating opinions of believability .................................. 62

Research Question #3: Effect on Victims’ Subsequent Level of
Engagement with the Investigation ................................................. 7O
Disclosure ...................................................................... 70
Victim participation/withdrawal ............................................. 76
Negative Case Analysis .............................................................. 80
Member Check Results: Victims ................................................... 84
Member Check Results: Advocates ................................................ 85

vi

DISCUSSION .................................................................................. 90

Summary of Major Findings ........................................................ 91

Case antecedents ................................................................ 91

Emerging theory .................................................................. 94

Implications of Findings: Practice ................................................. 101

Implication of Findings: Future Research 107

Limitations of Current Study ........................................................ 109

Conclusion ............................................................................. l 13
APPENDIX A

Background of Larger Research Project 115
APPENDIX B

Qualitative Survivor/Victim Interview Protocol .................................. 118
APPENDIX C

Sample Memos 134

REFERENCES ................................................................................. 142

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 - Demographics of Victims ........................................................ 43
Table 2 - Demographics of Offenders Characteristics .................................... 44
Table 3 - Demographics of Case Characteristics ........................................... 45

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 — Stages of Rape Case Processing ................................................. 4
Figure 2 - Comparison of Detectives’ Manner of Questioning by Case Outcome

and Victim-Offender Relationship .......................................................... 82
Figure 3 — An Emerging Theory of Detectives’ Inﬂuence on Victim Engagement... 91

ix

OVERVIEW

Rape is a pervasive but underreported crime in the United States, causing
debilitating psychological and physical health consequences for victims/survivorsl (Koss,
Bailey, Yuan, Herrera, & Lichter, 2003). Although these psychological and physical
health problems are largely attributable to the rape itself, some of this distress is also due
to how the legal system responds to rape victims (Campbell, Seﬂ, Barnes, Ahrens,
Wasco, & Zaragoza—Diesfeld, 1999; Campbell, Wasco, Ahrens, Seﬁ, & Barnes, 2001).
Victims’ ﬁrst contact with the legal system will usually be a responding ofﬁcer, who
takes an initial report and collects crime scene evidence immediately following a rape.
Then, the case is passed on to a detective to investigate the crime and interview the
victim and suspect. Prior studies have shown that some victims are treated by law
enforcement in ways that they experience as upsetting and victim blaming while others
are not (Campbell et al., 2001). It is important to understand this differential treatment
because negative treatment by law enforcement can have a substantial inﬂuence on
victims’ emotional well-being as well as the quality of the investigation itself.
Furthermore, the negative treatment that some victims receive could deter other victims
from seeking help and pursuing criminal justice prosecution (Patterson, Greeson, &
Campbell, 2008).

This research employed grounded theory qualitative methodology to build a
theory to explain how the interactions between the victim and detective affect the quality

of the investigation itself. The purpose of this study was to provide an in-depth

 

1 Throughout this paper, the term “victim” will be used to reﬂect the violent nature of this crime and the
language used by criminal justice system personnel.

examination of victims’ perceptions of their interactions with detectives during the
investigational interview to understand the differences between the quality of their
interactions in cases that were ultimately prosecuted by the criminal justice system
compared to those that were not prosecuted. In addition, this study examined how the
treatment victims receive from detectives affects victims’ engagement in the
investigational process.

To build this theory, qualitative interviews were conducted with twenty victims
who reported their rapes to law enforcement. The ﬁrst area of exploration focused on
contextual background information regarding the victim, the rape, and the efforts of the
responding ofﬁcer prior to the detective’s involvement. This contextual background
helped identify characteristics of victims and the assaults they experienced that are most
likely to be associated with successful prosecution. The second area of inquiry focused on
victims’ perceptions of how they were questioned by their detectives and how they feel
about this manner of questioning. The third area examined how the perceived manner of
questioning by detectives and its effect on victims inﬂuence the victims’ subsequent level
of engagement with the investigation. Each of these three areas were examined separately
among the cases that were ultimately prosecuted by the criminal justice system and those
that were not to understand if these factors explain why some cases are successﬁil, but

others are not.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Rape or sexual assault is often legally deﬁned as: “(1) any vaginal, anal, or oral
penetration by a penis, object or other body part; (2) lack of consent, communicated with
verbal or physical signs of resistance, or if the victim is unable to consent by means of
incapacitation because of age, disability, or drug or alcohol intoxication; and (3) threat of
or actual use of force” (Giardino, Datner & Asher, 2003, p.211). The process of
reporting and prosecuting a rape in the United States criminal justice system is quite
complicated and has been the focus of a substantial body of social science research since
the 19803. In this literature, the phrase “rape case processing” will be used to refer to the
actions of law enforcement, prosecutors and judicial systems to move rape cases through
the multiple steps of the legal system (LaFree, 1980). This literature review will begin
with a description of the stages involved in rape case processing. Following this
contextual information, the empirical literature on how many cases are prosecuted and
the cases typically prosecuted will be examined. Further, the research on how many cases
are not prosecuted (termed case attrition) and the cases typically dropped or not
prosecuted will be reviewed. Finally, literature on victim experiences with the law
enforcement will be reviewed to offer insight into what happens between the time the
case is reported and the detective makes a decision about the fate of the rape case. This
research consistently indicates that many victims are dissatisﬁed with their experiences
with law enforcement, frequently experience negative reactions by law enforcement, and

are encouraged to drop their cases.

Steps of Rape Case Processing

Rape victims come into contact with the legal system through various methods.
Some victims call or go directly to the police department and are subsequently referred to
a medical facility for medical treatment. Some victims contact a crisis hotline and then
are referred to a medical facility or the police. Other victims go directly to a medical
facility whereby medical personnel contact the police to make a report. While the ﬁrst
point of contact with these systems varies by jurisdiction and by victim, the following

example depicts the typical steps involved in rape case processing (see Figure 1).

Figure 1
Stages of Rape Case Processing

 

 

 

Detective
Road patrol Investigates
ofﬁcer takes And makes a
a report decision about
referring

Prosecutor
makes a
decision

about warranting

l

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Circuit judge District
or jury judge determines
determines guilt if probable
of offender cause exists

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The victim’s ﬁrst contact is often with a dispatched road patrol ofﬁcer who takes an
initial report and secures any evidence of the crime. At this point, the victim may be sent
to the hospital or a specialized sexual assault medical service program for a medical

forensic evidence exam (Martin, 2005). The purpose of this exam is to identify and treat

any injuries that the victim may have sustained in the assault and to collect medical
forensic evidence from the victim’s body. In the next stage of the process, a law
enforcement investigator (also termed detective) is typically assigned to the case and has
the responsibility of gathering evidence about the case by interviewing the victim in
detail about the rape, as well as the suspect (if known) (Galton, 1975-76). Drawing from
the reports by the patrol ofﬁcer, interviews, and the forensic evidence, the detective
assesses the validity of the victim’s story (Martin & Powell, 1995) and decides whether
to treat the incident as a crime and, if so, how to classify the crime (Kerstetter, 1990). If
the detective decides probable cause is not substantiated, the case is drOpped or closed
and the case ceases to move forward in the system (Bouffard, 2000; Martin & Powell,
1995).

If the detective decides that there is probable cause that a rape occurred, the case
is sent to the prosecutor (also termed “referring the case”), who considers the
investigator’s advice in making a tentative ﬁling decision before interviewing the victim
(F rohmann, 1998; Martin & Powell, 1995). The prosecutor can either decide to have a
warrant issued for the offender’s arrest (termed “warranting the case”), return the case for
further investigation, or can drop the case (Martin, 2005). If the prosecutor determines
there is sufﬁcient evidence documenting that a crime occurred, the case is warranted,
charges are determined, and the offender is arrested and arraigned. Some jurisdictions
convene a grand jury to determine if there is sufﬁcient evidence for the case to go to trial.
In other jurisdictions, the next court proceeding is the preliminary hearing at which a
judge determines if the legal requirements of the crime have been met. The victim may

provide a brief to detailed testimony about the rape at the preliminary hearing. Based on

the information presented at the hearing, the judge decides whether to “bound over” the
case for trial or dismiss the case entirely. If the case is bound over for trial, the offender
can plea-bargain with the prosecutor for lesser charges to avoid a trial. If the case does
go to trial, evidence is presented and the offender will be either found guilty or acquitted.
Offenders who accept plea-bargains or are found guilty receive a sentence of jail/prison
time or other punishment (Giardino, Datner & Asher, 2003).
Rates of Prosecuted Cases

Many states signiﬁcantly reformed their rape laws in the 19803 with the intent to
streamline rape case processing and increase the number of cases prosecuted. These
reforms stimulated a sizable body of research on whether rape cases are moved forward
throughout the legal system (e. g., referred, warranted). Using secondary data (e. g., police
records), prior research has found that 18% to 44% of all reported rape cases are referred
by law enforcement to prosecutors, with an average of 33% of rape cases being referred
(Bouffard, 2000; Chandler & Tomey, 1981; Crandall & Helitzer, 2003; Frazier & Haney,
1996; Galvin & Polk, 1982; LaFree, 1980). Among cases referred by law enforcement,
the rate that prosecutors warrant cases varied between 46% and 72% of the referred
cases, with an average of 56% being warranted (Chandler & Tomey, 1981; Frazier &
Haney, 1996; Galvin & Polk, 1982; LaFree, 1980; Spears, Beichner, and Davis-Frenzel,
2001). Of the cases prosecuted, the rate at which they end with a guilty verdict or guilty
plea bargain varied from 76% to 97%, with an average of 88% of prosecuted cases
ending successfully (Chandler & Tomey, 1981; Frazier & Haney, 1996; Galvin & Polk,

1982; LaFree, 1980; Spears et al., 2001). Overall, 14% to 18% of all reported rape cases

are prosecuted, with an average of 16% of reported rapes being prosecuted (Chandler &
Tomey, 1981; Frazier & Haney, 1996; Galvin & Polk, 1982; LaFree, 1980).
Rates of Dropped Cases

Previous studies suggest that 56% to 82% of all reported rape cases are dropped
(i.e., not referred to prosecutors) by law enforcement, with an average of 67% of rape
cases being dropped (Bouffard, 2000; Chandler & Tomey, 1981; Crandall & Helitzer,
2003; Frazier & Haney, 1996; Galvin & Polk, 1982; LaFree, 1980). As suggested by this
literature, the majority of rape cases do not progress beyond the decisions of law
enforcement. When cases are referred by law enforcement, 28% to 54% of the referred
cases were dropped (i.e., not warranted) by the prosecutors, with an average of 44% not
warranted (Chandler & Tomey, 1981; Frazier & Haney, 1996; Galvin & Polk, 1982;
LaFree, 1980; Spears et al., 2001). Overall, 82% to 86% of all reported rape cases were
dropped by the system, with an average of 84% of reported rapes never being prosecuted
(Chandler & Torney, 1981; Frazier & Haney, 1996; Galvin & Polk, 1982; LaFree, 1980).
Overall, the literature suggests that most rape cases are dropped by law enforcement, and
do not proceed through the criminal justice system. Furthermore, more recent studies are
reporting higher numbers of cases not being referred by law enforcement. Studies from
the 19803 indicated that 56% to 63% (Chandler & Tomey, 1981; Galvin & Polk, 1982;
LaFree, 1980) of cases were being dropped by law enforcement compared to 62% to 82%
of cases being dropped in more recent studies (Bouffard, 2000; Crandall & Helitzer,
2003; Frazier & Haney, 1996). Given that few reported rape cases move beyond the
investigational stage, more research is needed about how the interactions between the

victim and detective affect the quality of the investigation itself (Frazier & Haney, 1996).

While the prior literature does not provide an in-depth examination of these interactions,
the existing literature on the factors that predict case prosecution may provide insight into
which groups of victims have positive or negative interactions with detectives.

Factors that Predict Prosecuted vs. Non-Prosecuted Cases

Prosecuted and non-prosecuted cases tend to have distinctly different proﬁles
regarding the characteristics of the victim (e. g., age), and characteristics of the assault
(e.g., the relationship between the victim and offender).

Victim Characteristics. Legal system personnel often prosecute cases in which
they believe the victim will make a credible witness. Therefore, a case might not be
prosecuted if ofﬁcials do not think that the victim will make a credible witness even if
law enforcement and prosecutors believe that a rape occurred. The perception that a
victim will make a credible witness may be inﬂuenced by characteristics of the victim
such as age, race and social status. For example, previous research suggests that victim
age inﬂuences case outcomes. In particular, younger victims are more likely to have their
cases not prosecuted by legal system personnel (Rose & Randall, 1982; Spear & Spohn,
1996, 1997). Rose and Randall (1982) found that detectives believed that younger women
are more likely to fabricate the rape in order to hide consensual sexuality activity from
their parents. In addition, the detectives also viewed this age group as having instigated
the assault. While younger women’ motivations were questioned, the elderly were
viewed as legitimate victims, but poor witnesses. Thus, elderly victims’ cases were less
likely to have their cases prosecuted too. Conversely, prior studies suggest that system

personnel were more likely to believe the victim, and subsequently prosecute the case if

the victim was middle-aged (LaFree, 1981; Rose & Randall, 1982; Spear & Spohn, 1996,
1997) (cf. Chandler & Tomey, 1981).

Race of the victim is another element that may have an impact on cases
progressing. Cases are more likely to be prosecuted if the victim is white and not
prosecuted more oﬁen when the victim belongs to a racial minority group (Campbell et
al., 2001; Chandler & Tomey, 1981; Spears et al., 2001). The anecdotal literature
suggests that one reason these cases are treated less seriously is due to a lack of
conﬁdence by law enforcement in the veracity of African-American victims (Wriggins,
1983). Additionally, many studies suggest that racial composition of both the victim and
offender inﬂuence case processing (Bradmiller & Walters, 1985; Chandler & Tomey,
1981; Frohmann, 1997; LaFree, 1980, 1981; Rose & Randall, 1982; Spears et a1, 2001).
In particular, these studies found that cases involving African-American offenders
assaulting white victims were more likely to be warranted. However, many studies have
also found that race does not have a signiﬁcant effect on whether a case was prosecuted
(Frazier & Haney, 1996; Kerstetter, 1990; Spears & Spohn, 1996, 1997).

Another victim characteristic that inﬂuences case progression is social class
status. Although few researchers have examined this variable, those who have
consistently ﬁnd that victims from lower socio-economic areas are more likely to have
their cases not prosecuted by legal system personnel. Rose and Randall’s (1982) study
revealed that detectives exhibited class prejudice toward victims who hold lower class
status and tended to typify them as having low morality. Despite this prejudice, the
investigators tended to look for other indices of credibility. Therefore, a victim with

lower socio-economic status who appears credible may be treated the same as a victim

with middle class status. However, indices of credibility are heavily class biased. For
example, seeking medical attention is used as an indicator of credibility but victims from
lower socio-economic status have less access to medical care. In a more recent study,
Frohmann (1997) found that prosecutors also hold class prejudices. Prosecutors were less
likely to view cases involving victims with lower socio-economic status as prosecutable
because they believe jurors would not view these victims as credible.

Prior studies also suggest that lack of victim engagement with the prosecution
process signiﬁcantly inﬂuences cases not being prosecuted (Kerstetter & Van Winkle
1990). A delay in reporting by victims is related to cases not being prosecuted
(F rohmann, 1997; Kerstetter, 1990). Victims who wait even a day to report their rape
may be viewed as less credible or uncertain about prosecuting. The longer the victim
waits to report, the greater the doubt about her credibility (Rose & Randall, 1982).
Additionally, prosecutors tend to drop cases if anything is inconsistent in the victim’s
story regarding the key aspects of the rape. The discrepancies in the victims’ accounts of
the rape were used as indicators that the victims lacked credibility. Furthermore,
prosecutors assumed that the victims’ inconsistencies could not be attributed to error of
law enforcement (Frohmann, 1997).

The most common reason noted in law enforcement records for suspects not being
questioned or referred to the prosecuting attorney is victims wishing to withdrawal their
participation from prosecution (Frazier & Haney, 1996). There are many reasons why
victims choose not to prosecute after initially reporting. Interviews with victims have
consistently revealed that reasons for not prosecuting include concern of how they will be

treated by legal system personnel, a belief that the rape is a “private” matter and not

10

wanting it to become “public” (Frazier & Haney, 1996). Detectives report that they do
not refer cases if the victim does not want to prosecute because the victim’s cooperation
is critical to a successful investigation (Kerstetter, 1990). However, the decision may not
be exclusively made by the victim (Frazier & Haney, 1996). Kerstetter (1990) found that
law enforcement may misinterpret victim behaviors as lack of cooperation. For example,
law enforcement may believe victims are uncooperative if they miss an interview, which
subsequently leads to these cases not being prosecuted.

Case characteristics. Previous research has also established that characteristics of
the assault and the assault context also inﬂuence rape case processing. Studies exploring
the role of the victim-offender relationship in rape case processing have shown mixed
results. Prior research suggests that rape cases involving acquaintances may be assessed
and treated differently than incidents involving strangers. The major investigative
concern in stranger rape cases is identifying the offender. The decisions to prosecute
stranger rape cases are determined primarily by evidentiary strength of the case.
Conversely, decisions to warrant acquaintance rape cases are determined largely by
assessing the lack of consent by and the credibility of the victim (Kerstetter & Van
Winkle, 1990). The majority of studies and anecdotal literature suggest that if the
offender is a stranger to the victim, there is a greater chance that the allegation will be
taken seriously and referred than if the offender is an acquaintance (Bradmiller &
Walters, 1985; Chandler & Tomey, 1981; Chappel et a1, 1977; Kerstetter, 1990;
LeGrand, 1975; Rose and Randall, 1982). However, more recent studies have shown that
the victim-offender relationship had no effect on legal outcomes of rape cases (Bachman,

1998; Spohn & Homey, 1993; Spears & Spohn, 1996, 1997). Further, one study suggests

11

that acquaintance cases are more likely to move forward in the system. Through
interviews and analysis of prosecutor ﬁles, Spears and colleagues (2001) found that
prosecutors did not prosecute stranger cases more often than acquaintance cases. They
noted that most of the victims of stranger rape in this sample engaged in behavior likely
to be questioned by the prosecutors (e. g., delayed reporting, engaging in prostitution,
walking alone at night). Interestingly, interviews conducted with prosecutors indicated
that they would be less inclined to warrant acquaintance cases.

Offender tactics is another important element of rape cases that may inﬂuence
whether the case is prosecuted. Sex offenders use various types of tactics to control
victims such as weapons or use of force (Cleveland, Harrington, Koss, & Lynons, 1999).
Several studies have shown that the presence of a weapon or the use of force increased
the probability that a case will move forward in the legal system (Bradmiller & Walters,
1985; Campbell et al., 2001; Chandler & Tomey, 1981; Kerstetter 1990; LaFree 1981;
Martin & Powell, 1995; Rose & Randall, 1982). For example, investigators were more
likely to refer cases in which they doubted the victims’ credibility if the case involved
weapon use (Rose & Randall, 1982). Because victim credibility is often doubted in rape
cases involving acquaintances, weapon use may be related to moving acquaintance rape
cases through the legal system. In fact, Kerstetter (1990) found that weapon use was the
sole signiﬁcant factor in the prosecutorial decision in warranting acquaintance rape cases.
Weapon use was particularly important to cases in which the offender claimed that the
victim consented to the sexual activity. However, some studies have suggested that
weapon use has no effect on cases being referred by investigators (Frazier & Haney,

1996) or warranted by prosecutors (Spears & Spohn, 1997).

12

Although the law no longer requires proof of resistance, many judges and jurors
still view injury as necessary proof the victim did not consent (Giardino et al., 2003). As
such, most studies suggest that cases in which the victim endures injuries are more likely
to be moved forward by legal system personnel (Chandler & Tomey, 1981; Feldman-
Summers & Palmers, 1980; Frazier & Haney, 1996; Galton, 1976; Kerstetter, 1990;
Martin & Powell, 1995; Rose & Randall, 1982; Spohn & Spears, 1997; Spohn et al.,
2001). For example, detectives noted that they expected to see bruises or lacerations on
the victim’s body, which indicated to them that she resisted (Galton, 1976). Rose and
Randall (1982) also found that detectives perceived legitimate rape cases as having
corroborating physical evidence such as injury or torn clothing. Further, if the victim’s
credibility was questioned, the case had a higher chance of being referred if corroborating
physical evidence existed. Evidence of physical force helped to demonstrate non-consent
to detectives.

Alcohol and drug use by the victim is another element of rape cases that
signiﬁcantly inﬂuenced system personnel dropping cases (Campbell, 1998; Chandler &
Tomey, 1981; Spears & Spohn, 1996; Frohmann, 1997). For example, Campbell (1998)
reported that victims who were drinking at the time of the rape were four times more
likely to have their cases dropped early in the stages of the legal system (of. Frazier &
Haney, 1996). Alcohol or drug use diminishes the victim’s credibility in the eyes of many
legal system personnel (Spears & Spohn, 1996). In fact, Kerstetter (1990) determined that
victims who used alcohol or drugs were less likely to have their cases move forward for

both stranger and acquaintance cases.

13

In addition to victim credibility, prior literature suggests that detectives are more
likely to forward cases that require less effort. Speciﬁcally, prior literature suggests that
detectives are more likely to forward cases when the offender is already in custody
because it requires less investigational effort. For example, detectives do not need to
complete paperwork for an arrest warrant, obtain an arrest warrant from a judge, or
search for the offender. Furthermore, detectives routinely encourage victims to prosecute
if the offender is in custody because less effort is needed on their part (Kerstetter & Van
Winkle 1990).

Overall, this literature suggests that the legal system only forwards those cases
that law enforcement and prosecutors perceive as credible or “winnable,” and victim and
case characteristics are used as indices of credibility. As such, cases viewed as credible
and subsequently prosecuted may be handled differently by law enforcement than cases
viewed as lacking credibility and subsequently dropped. Therefore, it is important to
compare cases that are ultimately prosecuted with those cases that are dropped when
examining the quality of the interactions between victims and detectives. Furthermore,
prior research has consistently found most rape cases are dropped by law enforcement,
which highlights the importance of more in-depth examinations of law enforcement’s
role in case attrition.

Victims’ Experiences with Law Enforcement

Prior studies suggest that victims have concerns about how they will be treated by
legal system personnel (Fraser & Haney, 1996). Law enforcement is the ﬁrst point of
contact for victims, which provides victims with an indication of how they may be treated

by legal system. personnel throughout the prosecutorial process (Martin, 2005). For

14

example, victims who are blamed by law enforcement may anticipate further blame at
later stages of the prosecutorial process. Therefore, these early interactions with law
enforcement may affect the victim’s level of engagement with the entire prosecutorial
process. Furthermore, prosecutors take into account the detective’s input when making a
decision to warrant the case (Frohmann, 1998; Martin, 2005). Thus, a prosecutor’s view
of the case may be tainted by the detective’s opinion of the case. Taken together, law
enforcement has great discretion in deciding what happens to the case and how the victim
will experience the legal system. As such, law enforcement plays an important role as
they set the stage for how victims will experience the prosecutorial process. However,
relatively little is known about the victim’s experience with law enforcement between
initial reporting and when law enforcement detectives decide to refer or drop the case.
The limited research on this topic suggests that victims are dissatisﬁed with their
experiences with law enforcement, frequently experience negative reactions by legal
system personnel, and are encouraged to drop their cases by law enforcement.

Some of the studies on this topic have collected data directly from victims
regarding how satisﬁed they were with the treatment they received from law
enforcement. For example, Ullman (1996) surveyed 155 sexual assault victims to
examine the types of social reactions they experienced from a variety of informal and
formal support providers. Many victims reported feeling dissatisﬁed with law
enforcement because they experienced negative responses including being blamed,
treated differently, distracted, and discouraged from talking about the assault. Using a
larger sample, F ilipas and Ullman (2001) surveyed 323 victims who disclosed their

victimizations to informal and formal supports. Of the 26% of victims who reported to

15

police, 43% found the police unhelpful. In particular, dissatisﬁed victims indicated that
the police did not believe them and communicated rape myths to the victims such as “you
shouldn’t have been in his apartment if you didn’t want to have sex” (p. 683).

In a more recent study, Monroe, Kinney, Weist, Dafeamekpor, Dantzler, and
Reynolds (2005) administered a statewide assessment of victims’ experiences with
multiple systems. They conducted telephone interviews with 125 adult victims who
received care at 19 rape crisis centers. Of those who made police reports, 46% expressed
dissatisfaction with their interactions with the police. Unfortunately, the reasons for their
dissatisfaction were not reported in this study. These studies suggest that slightly over
half of the victims report satisfaction with law enforcement, which means that rape case
processing is not always adversarial or hurtful for victims. However, it remains unknown
why some victims have satisfactory experiences with law enforcement while others do
not.

Other studies collecting data from victims have provided a more in-depth
examination of how victims were treated by system personnel. The majority of these
studies suggest that victims often are treated in ways that they experience as upsetting
and victim blaming (Campbell et al., 2001). These negative interactions with system
personnel have been termed “secondary victimization” because victims often report that
the negative experience feels like a “second rape” by system personnel (Campbell, 1998;
Campbell & Raja, 1999; Campbell et al., 1999; Campbell et al., 2001; Madigan &
Gamble, 1991; Martin & Powell, 1994). Campbell and associates (1999) interviewed a
representative sample of 102 rape victims in a major metropolitan area about how

experiencing secondary victimization by legal, medical, and mental health system

16

personnel affects victims’ psychological well-being. Most of the women who had contact
with the legal and/or medical systems experienced at least two secondary victimization
behaviors. For example, victims were told their stories were unbelievable or that their
cases were not serious enough to pursue. Experiencing behaviors of doubt and blame by
system personnel were associated with increased psychological distress of victims.
Further, the more revictimizing behaviors the victims experienced, the higher their post-
traumatic stress symptomatology.

In subsequent analyses, Campbell and colleagues (2001) examined how many
victims reported having hurtful experiences with law enforcement and its impact on
victims. Of the 39% of victims who reported to police, more than half of those who had
contact with the legal system described their experience as hurtful. Further, victims were
more likely to rate their contact with the legal system as hurtful when their cases were
dropped. Victims who rated their contact with the legal system as hurtful exhibited higher
psychological and physical health distress.

Campbell and Raja (2005) also examined secondary victimization with a sample
of female veteran rape victims and found similar results. One hundred and four female
veterans were interviewed about their help-seeking experiences, with 39% of the victims
reporting their rape to either civilian or military police. Overall, the study found that
victims experienced secondary victimization by both civilian and military police. For
example, more than half of the victims were discouraged from making a report and asked
if they resisted the offender. Some of the victims were also asked about their sexual
history and how they were dressed. The majority of victims blamed themselves after their

contact with the legal system, and felt reluctant to seek further help.

17

 

Another study conducted focus groups with victims living in rural and urban
areas, and found that victims from both geographical areas experienced secondary
victimization. In a qualitative study, Logan, Evans, Stevenson, and Jordan (2005)
conducted six focus groups with thirty victims who were receiving services at rape crisis
centers in rural and urban counties. Many of the victims reported that their experience
with the legal system was dehumanizing. Some of the participants felt interrogated,
intimidated, and blamed by the police because their tone of questioning was accusatory.
Many victims expressed feeling distressed by having to retell the details of the rape, and
stated that the police were cold and unsupportive. Participants felt that the offenders had
more control than they did. Some participants were threatened by the police that they
would be charged with a crime if they did not provide an accurate story. Several women
mentioned that they would not have reported if they had known what the experience
would be like. In addition, many participants expressed having little faith that justice
exists for rape victims. However, some of the victims reported positive experiences with
law enforcement and felt they were considerate and helpful.

The perspectives of law enforcement personnel were the focus of some studies to
examine the interactions between victims and police. These studies primarily examined
how law enforcement may inﬂuence victims’ participation in the prosecutorial process.
Galton (1975-1976) conducted one of the ﬁrst studies examining law enforcement’s role
in case attrition. He provided detectives with a questionnaire focusing on six hypothetical
rape cases that were based on actual reports. The investigators were asked to suggest a
disposition of the cases, indicate the facts most signiﬁcant to the case, and how they

would handle the case. The detectives noted they would try to obtain an afﬁdavit of non-

18

prosecution from the victim rather than further investigate the case when they did not
believe the victim’s account of the rape.

A subsequent study conducted in the 19803 post-reform era utilized secondary
data to examine attrition rates in rape case processing and found similar results to
Galton’s analysis. For instance, Greenberg and Ruback (1992) found that 11% of the
victims who reported their rape were encouraged by the police or prosecutors to drop the
charges. In a more in-depth examination of this topic, Kerstetter and Van Winkle (1990)
examined whether victims’ decisions to prosecute is subject to police inﬂuence. With a
random sample of 587 police ﬁles of reported rape cases in 1981, they found detectives
sometimes inﬂuenced the victims’ preference for their own purposes. If detectives
decided that they would like to drop a case, they attempted to convince the victim that it
was in her interest to drop the case. Some detectives even graphically portrayed the
personal costs involved (e.g., repeated trips to court, humiliating cross-examination). On
the other hand, detectives seldom discouraged a victim from prosecution if the accused
was in custody or if the case did not involve additional ﬁeld work. The authors concluded
that the victim’s decision must be seen as more complex than a simple statement of
personal choice. The victim’s decision appears frequently to be subject to law
enforcement inﬂuence for a variety of purposes.

The perspectives of both law enforcement and victims were incorporated in some
studies to explore how law enforcement treats victims. Campbell (2005) interviewed rape
victims who sought emergency medical care from hospitals about how they were treated
by system personnel. Interviews were also conducted with doctors, nurses, and police

ofﬁcers about how they treated the victims and their beliefs about how this treatment

19

impacted victims. The study found high interrater reliability between the accounts of
victims and law enforcement regarding how victims were treated. For example, 69% of
the victims reported that law enforcement discouraged them from ﬁling a report, and 60%
of the police reported that they did indeed discourage the victim from ﬁling a report.
However, police ofﬁcers signiﬁcantly underestimated the impact their response had on
victims. For example, 71% of victims reported feeling violated after their interactions
with law enforcement but only 44% of ofﬁcers believed that the victims would feel
violated as a result of the interactions. Furthermore, 80% of victims reported being
reluctant to seek further help after their interactions but only 22% of the ofﬁcers
estimated that the victim would be reluctant to seek further help as a result of the

interaction.

20

 

CURRENT STUDY

The primary purpose of this study was to examine victims’ perceptions of the
investigational process, comparing how these perceptions vary in cases that were
ultimately prosecuted by the criminal justice system compared to those that were not
prosecuted. Successful prosecution of rape cases depends heavily on the information
provided by victims during the law enforcement investigation because this crime
typically has no witnesses (Bouffard, 2000; Martin & Powell, 1995). Cases are more
likely to move forward through the criminal justice system when a thorough account of
the crime has been documented (Martin, 2005). As such, the communication between the
victim and detective during the investigational stage is paramount to the development of
the case, and perhaps ultimately, its prosecutorial outcome. The detective asks victims
questions to gather information about the crime and the victim provides answers. In
addition, the detective may provide the victim with information about the case (e. g.,
suspect’s account), which may elicit further communication between the victim and
detective. However, the complexity of this ﬂow of communication has not been
examined. There may be variability in how detectives ask questions, which may affect
victims positively or negatively, and subsequently inﬂuence the quality of information
given by the victims. It is important to examine this issue from the victims’ vieWpoint
because their perception of the detectives’ questioning may affect how they feel about
these interactions and their level of engagement in subsequent interactions. By looking
back at the victims’ perceptions of what happened during the investigational stage, we
can begin to understand how the dynamic interplay between victims and detectives may

inﬂuence the quality of the case put together.

21

Primary Research Aims

This study built a theory that explains how the interactions between the victim
and detective affect the quality of the investigation itself. The current study has three foci
to understand how the quality of the interactions between victims and detectives are
substantially different in cases that are prosecuted compared to those that are not
prosecuted. First, the literature suggests that victim (e.g., age) and case characteristics
(e.g., victim/offender relationship), and early arrest affect whether or not detectives will
refer rape cases. Drawing upon this literature, the current study examined the case
antecedents that differentiate prosecuted and non-prosecuted cases before the detective’s
involvement in the case. That is, this study identiﬁed victim and case characteristics that
may affect the detectives’ and prosecutors’ decisions to prosecute or drop the case, as
well as the detectives’ manner of questioning during the investigational process. Further,
the actions of the responding ofﬁcer were examined to identify what was happening to
the case prior to the detective’s involvement. Was the suspect arrested prior to the
detective’s involvement? Information about the responding ofﬁcer’s actions provides
context about the state of the investigation when the detective becomes involved, which
may affect the case outcome.

Second, the current study examined if the victims’ perceptions of the detectives’
manner of questioning is different in cases that were ultimately prosecuted by the
criminal justice system compared to those that were not prosecuted. For example, a
detective’s manner of questioning may include the pacing of questions, building rapport
with victims, and exhibiting concern and respect. On the other hand, a detective’s manner

of questioning may involve blaming her for the rape, and displaying apathy about the

22

case or victim. How do victims’ perceptions of the manner of detectives’ questioning
compare between cases that were ultimately prosecuted by the criminal justice system
and those that were not prosecuted (i.e., dropped)? In addition, this study examined how
victims feel about the manner of the detectives’ questionings. How did the manner of
questioning emotionally affect victims in cases that were ultimately prosecuted by the
legal system compared to those that were not prosecuted?

Third, this study explored how the perceived manner of questioning by detectives
and its effect on victims inﬂuence the victims’ subsequent level of engagement with the
investigation, and whether that differed among the cases that were ultimately prosecuted
by the legal system compared to those that were not prosecuted. What is similar or
different about the perceived manner of questioning by detectives and their level of
engagement within the cases that were eventually prosecuted? What is similar or different
about the perceived manner of questioning by detectives and their level of engagement
within the cases that were not prosecuted?

Research Questions

An overarching goal of this research is to build a theory that explains how the
interactions between the victim and detective affect the quality of the investigation itself.
Three speciﬁc research questions guide this study: 1) what are the case antecedents that
differentiate prosecuted and non-prosecuted cases before detective involvement in the
cases; 2) how do victims perceive how they were questioned by their detectives and feel
about the manner of questioning; and 3) how does the perceived manner of questioning
by detectives and its effect on victims inﬂuence the victims ’ subsequent level of

engagement with the investigation. To answer these research questions, qualitative

23

interviews with 20 adult rape victims were analyzed to understand their experiences with
detectives from police departments within one focal county in the Midwest. These
qualitative data were collected within the context of a larger research project (see
Appendix A for details). Speciﬁcally, these data examined: a) the characteristics of the
victim and rape, and efforts of the responding ofﬁcers prior to detective involvement; b)
the victims’ perceived manner of questioning by detectives within the context of case
outcomes (i.e., prosecuted and non-prosecuted cases); and c) how the perceived manner
of questioning by detectives inﬂuence the victims’ subsequent level of engagement with
the investigation.

A qualitative approach was selected as the most appropriate method for obtaining
a context-rich description of how the interactions between the victim and detective affect
the quality of the investigation. The qualitative data analyses in this study was guided by
constructivist grounded theory, which aims to develop a theory that provides
understanding of rather than predicting phenomenon (Charmaz, 2006). Speciﬁcally, this
analytical approach was chosen to build a theory of how the interactions between the
victim and detective affect the quality of the investigation. Grounded theory methods
provide a conceptual analysis of patterned relationships that emerge from the data.
Grounded theory is particularly useful in this study because it can indicate purposeful
interactions between victims and detectives that are not necessarily progressive but
change in response to conditions (Corbin & Strauss, 1990). This inductive approach also
allows victims’ descriptions of their experiences with detectives to guide our

understanding of the manner of questioning and its impact on victims while retaining the

24

speciﬁc context of the assault, which provides us with an understanding of the case
antecedents prior to the detectives’ involvement with the cases.

Grounded theory is distinct from other qualitative analyses by its deﬁning
components (Creswell, 2007; Glaser & Strauss, 1967). First, there is simultaneous
involvement in data collection and analysis. That is, the research begins analyses early in
the data collection stage to identify gaps in the data, which are addressed in subsequent
interviews. The second feature of grounded theory is constructing analytic codes from the
data, not from preconceived logically deduced hypotheses. This helps the researcher
remain open to all potential theoretical directions that emerge from the data. Third,
grounded theory uses a constant comparative method, which involves comparing one
piece of data to another or taking information from recent interviews and comparing it to
prior emerging patterns or categories found in prior analyses. Finally, the analyst engages
in memo-writing to describe emerging patterns of the participants’ experiences including
processes (e. g., how did things unfold during the interactions between victims and
detectives) and the consequences of those processes (e. g., how did the interactions affect
victims). Further, memos document the analyst’s thoughts about the comparisons and
connections being made, and help the analyst identify questions and directions to pursue

with the data (Charmaz, 2006).

25

METHODS

Sample

Adult rape female victims who reported their assaults to law enforcement and
received a medical forensic exam from September 1999 to J une 2007 were the target
sample for this study. Female rape victims were eligible for the study if they: 1) were age
18 or older at the time of the assault; 2) were victimized in the focal County; 3) reported
the rape to law enforcement; and 4) received a medical forensic exam between September
1999 to June 2007. Adult female rape victims who sought medical assistance following
the rape were selected for this study because their post-assault actions are relatively
similar. That is, victims in this sample were already engaged in the investigational
process (i.e., medical forensic exam) prior to the detectives involvement in the case. This
provides an opportunity to examine how the interactions between detectives and engaged
victims affect victims’ subsequent levels of engagement with the investigational process.
Two main strategies were used to recruit victims for the study: prospective purposive
sampling and community-based retrospective purposive sampling.

Prospective sampling of victims. The focal sexual assault nurse examiner program
(who provides all medical forensic exams for rape victims in the focal county) agreed to
modify their existing patient paperwork to include a form requesting participation in
evaluation research. In this form, we described the study and asked victims if they would
be willing to be contacted at a later date by the principal investigator or research
assistants to follow-up with them regarding their experiences (positive or negative) with
the legal system. Victims who consented to be contacted completed a contact information

form including information on how and when they could be safely contacted by the

26

investigator or research assistants. Victims were contacted approximately ten weeks after
completing the contact form, which is typically enough time for them to have experiences
with the legal system and a decision made about their case by legal system personnel. If
the victims agreed to participate, the principal investigator for the current study
(Patterson) assessed the status of their court case. If the case was dropped (by the victim
or system personnel), the interview was scheduled. If the case was in progress, the
research assistants maintained contact with the victim about the status of the case, and
scheduled an interview after the case was either dropped or the prosecutor had ofﬁcially
charged the case.

Community-based retrospective recruitment of victims. It was anticipated that
there would not be enough prospective cases to sample because victims may not be ready
to talk about their assault until later in their healing process. As such, an additional
sampling strategy was needed to identify enough cases for the study. A second approach
recruited “older” cases that have gone through the focal sexual assault nurse examiner
(SANE) program. Although it may be possible to review the SANE program’s records to
ﬁnd the names and contact information of former patients, contacting these victims “out
of the blue” without their knowledge or consent is inadvisable for safety and
conﬁdentiality reasons. Therefore, other ways to reach some of the SANE program’s
former patients were used. Through a community-based retrospective recruitment, a
recruitment ﬂyer advertising the study throughout our focal county was distributed (see
Campbell, Seﬂ, Wasco, & Ahrens, 2004). For this recruitment strategy, the goal was
wide-spread dissemination of information about the study throughout the community

including posting advertisements at local businesses (e. g., grocery stores, hair salons),

27

community-wide mailings, and posting in human and health service agencies including
the rape crisis center. This strategy allowed victims to decide privately for themselves
whether to contact the research team. If victims were eligible to participate and decided
to contact the research team, they were screened for eligibility, and then scheduled for an
interview. This retrospective design provided access to “older” cases, which was
necessary for reaching the desired sample size for this study. Overall, 50% of the victim
participants were recruited through prospective purposive sampling methods, and the
other 50% from retrospective purposive sampling methods (speciﬁcally, 30% from
community mailings and 20% from wide-spread dissemination of information about the
study throughout the community). There were no substantive differences in the ﬁndings
of victims recruited prospectively compared to those recruited retrospectively.

The sample includes twenty female victims who reported their rape in the focal
county and examined at the focal SANE program. Participant recruitment and
interviewing continued until the sample size allowed for saturation, whereby the same
themes were repeated, with no new themes emerging among participants (Starks &
Trinidad, 2007). This is a reasonable sample size for a qualitative study examining
phenomenon in-depth (Creswell, 2007; Sandelowski, 1995). The average age of victim
participants was 28 years old, with a range of 18 to 53 years old. Eighty-ﬁve percent of
the victim participants were white, which is similar to the demographic make-up of the
focal county. The highest level of education varied among participants: 20% attended
high school but did not graduate, 30% have a high school diploma, 40% attended some

college and 10% have a bachelor’s or master’s degree.

28

The majority of victims were raped by someone they knew, with 40% being raped
by their partners (e.g., dating partner, spouse, life-time partner), and 40% being raped by
acquaintances (e. g., friends, coworker). Forty percent of the victims had consumed drugs
or alcohol before the rape. The majority of victims made a police report on the same day
as the rape (75%), and 25% of the victims reported within a few days.

With respect to case outcomes (i.e., was the case prosecuted), nine victims had
their cases prosecuted for rape charges with ﬁve cases resulting in a guilty verdict or plea
bargain, three cases pending trial, and one case acquitted by a jury. Eleven victims’ cases
were not prosecuted for rape charges. Two cases involving rape by intimate partners
resulted in domestic violence misdemeanor charges but not rape felony charges. One
victim dropped the case because she did not believe the system could protect her. Two
victims were raped by strangers who were not apprehended.

Procedures

Victim interviews were conducted in-person at an administrative ofﬁce of a rape
crisis center by one of three interviewers. The interviewers were trained by Dr. Rebecca
Campbell and ongoing weekly meetings were held to review interview transcripts to
further develop interviewing skills and discuss emerging themes to address in subsequent
interviews. The length of the interviews ranged from 1.5 to 4 hours, with an average of
two hours. The interviews were tape recorded with permission, and transcribed.
Participants were paid $30 for their time.

Interviewing is distinct in grounded theory, whereby data collection and analysis
occurs simultaneously (Creswell, 2007). In the current study, the interviewers met

regularly to review transcripts between interviews to discuss emerging themes. The

29

interviewers developed a working list of topics that needed more exploration in
subsequent interviews. This process continued throughout the data collection process. For
example, victims reported the worst part of their experience with the detectives was
telling their story repeatedly. The meaning of this “retelling” concept was probed in
subsequent interviews (e. g., what did it mean to you when the detective asked you to tell
what happened again), which led to the understanding that victims felt their detectives did
not believe them when they had to retell their story.
Measures

The semi-structured interview protocol was developed in four stages. First, the
interview was adapted in part from a prior study, which was co-developed with
advocates, rape victims, and community personnel (Campbell et al., 2001). This
formative work helped identify appropriate phrasing of the questions so that they were
understandable and supportive to rape victims. Second, the literature on law enforcement
interactions with victims was reviewed and informed the protocol of the current study.
Third, key legal and medical personnel in the focal county were consulted on the content
of the interview protocol and revised accordingly. Fourth, the interview protocol was
pilot tested with ﬁve rape victims to assess the content and probes, and provide an
opportunity for the PI of the current study (Patterson) to receive training on qualitative
interviewing with rape victims.

The interview consisted of ﬁve main topics: 1) the rape itself and initial
disclosures; 2) victims’ experiences with SANE program staff including nurses and
victim support advocates; 3) the speciﬁc role forensic medical evidence (e.g., injuries,

DNA) plays in victims’ decisions to participate in prosecution; 4) victims’ experiences

30

with law enforcement (initial report through prosecution), and how those interactions
affect victims; and 5) victims’ experiences with the prosecutor and judicial proceedings
(e.g., preliminary hearing, plea-bargain discussions, and trial), and how those interactions
inﬂuence victims. Appendix B presents the interview protocol in its entirety. Because the
primary goal of the current study is to examine the victims’ perceptions of the manner of
the detectives’ questioning and its impact on victims, some of the questions from the
entire interview are more relevant than others. The interview protocol guided victim
participants through separate topics including a section regarding victims’ experiences
with law enforcement. It was common for victims to discuss aspects of their experience
with law enforcement detectives throughout the interview. For example, victims would
compare their experiences with detectives to their experiences with other medical or legal
personnel. Therefore, the entire transcript of the twenty victim participants in this study
was examined for responses regarding detectives. Regardless, some interview questions
relate more directly to the speciﬁc research questions posed by this current study. The
interview questions that yielded responses from victims about detectives are bolded in
Appendix B.
Data Analyses

Data management. The PI (Patterson) used NVivo7 software for data analysis to
manage and analyze the date (QSR, 2006). The PI attended a two-day training on
beginning and intermediate features of the software. NVivo7 software provides options
for coding, linking, creating memos, running queries, and forming visual graphics and
tables for theory building. NVivo7 is able to handle rich information for deep levels of

analysis. Transcripts from the victim interviews were imported into NVivo 7.

31

Because the transcripts were part of a larger study, the data were reduced to a
manageable form (Miles & Huberrnan, 1994). Thus, the ﬁrst step in the data analyses was
to identify transcript segments that pertained to: a) case antecedents including victim and
case characteristics, and when/if the offender was arrested; and b) the interactions
between victims and detectives. Speciﬁcally, sections of the transcripts that are related to
these two areas were coded or chunked into a separate ﬁle. This identiﬁcation of the
pertinent sections was highly inclusive but allowed the P1 to focus the analyses on
relevant data.

Grounded theory coding. The next step in the analyses involved three phases of
coding. Qualitative coding helps categorize segments of data with a succinct name to
describe each piece of data. Coding helps the data progress from describing the data to
developing an emerging understanding of the data (Charmaz, 2006). The ﬁrst level of
coding is line-by-line coding, which involves using gerunds in each line of the interview.
That is, the PI deﬁned an action (implicit or explicit) describing what people were doing
or what was happening for every line of the interview. Capturing these actions and
processes at a micro level initiates thinking around small and large actions between
victims and detectives, and allows the consequences of actions to emerge. This process is

illustrated below using data from the victim interviews:

 

Data from Victim Interview Line-by-Line Coding
I don’t know the detectives once they Detective not blaming victim

found out, once the detectives talked to me,

you know, the detectives told me no matter

what, you know, that that wasn’t right. Detective teaming with victim
That they were going to be on my side.

32

The detective, saw me where I freaked out .Detective protecting victim by

so bad when I, ﬁrst time I seen him blocking offender from her
(offender) and the detective stood in front

of me, just in case while he (offender) was

walking by this guy wasn’t going to try and

hit me or talk to me or do anything, the

detective was standing right there and like,

you (offender) just keep on walking by.

Additionally, coding for actions instead of themes moves the analyst beyond the
descriptive level to detecting processes that may be occurring during the investigational
interviews and the consequences of those processes on the interactions between victims
and detectives. During this initial coding stage, the codes simply reﬂect the actions
occurring without the analyst interpretations about those actions, which allow themes to
emerge from the perspective of participants, providing the analyst more of an insider
view while reducing researcher bias (Charmaz, 2006). Throughout this analytical stage,
the PI compared and coded data and documented memos that represented thoughts about
relationships among the data. The PI wrote memos to capture initial thoughts about: a)
what the study is about given the emerging themes; b) what does the data suggest; c)
when, why, and how does the process change; and what are the consequences of the

process between the victims and detectives? Below is an example of a memo written

during the initial coding stage.

Memo: Partnering

Thus far, the story of the data seems to be about the interactions or
relationships between victims and detectives. There seems to be a
partnering process happening between the victim and detective with
prosecuted cases. Detectives ask victims factual questions to help with the
case (together they make the case stronger). They appear more united
(together we stand against the offender). It appears that victims

33

contributing to the investigation make them feel like they have more
control.

Cases that are not prosecuted seem different. Victims seem put (or feeling

put) in a more passive stance of merely responding to detectives or waiting

for detectives to do something (e. g., calling them back). In these cases, I

picture the detective putting their arm out with their hand on the victims’

forehead to keep the victims at bay (cold, standofﬁsh). Sometimes I

picture the victims running in this position and getting no where (e.g.,

victims suggesting leads but detective does not follow or victims trying to

contact the detective repeatedly without a return phone call).

In this example memo, the Pl began identifying the study is about the relationship
between the victim and detective, whereby the detective includes the victim in the
investigation (process), which leaves the victim feeling like she and the detective are a
team (consequence). This process is termed partnering, which may help victims feel more
in control (consequence). This memo led the P1 to pay attention to the qualities and
characteristics of the relationship between the victim and detective throughout the coding
process.

The second level of coding is called “focused” coding, which involves identifying
the most signiﬁcant or frequent codes identiﬁed in the line-by-line coding (Charmaz,
2006). During this phase, the analyst identiﬁed the most salient initial codes that make
the most analytic sense of the data. That is, the analyst selected initial codes that best
represent what is happening during the interactions between victims and detectives.

Below is an example of how the PI identiﬁed the focused codes by reviewing the line-by-

line codes.

34

Data from Victim Interview Line-by-Line Coding Focused

Code

I don’t know the detectives once they found out, Detective not blaming Not
once the detectives talked to me, you know, the victim blaming
detectives told me no matter what, you know, that
that wasn’t right. That they were going to be on my Detective teaming Partnering
side. with victim

Detective protecting Protecting
The detective, saw me where I freaked out so bad victim by blocking
when I, ﬁrst time I seen him (offender) and the offender from her

detective stood in front of me, just in case while he

(offender) was walking by this guy wasn’t going to

try and hit me or talk to me or do anything, the

detective was standing right there and like, you

(offender) just keep on walking by.

After identifying all of the focused codes, the PI returned to the data and line-by-line
codes and coded each piece of data into the focused codes. During the focused coding
and all subsequent analytic steps, the PI formulated explanations as to what was
happening in the interactions between detectives and victims and why. In the next steps,
the PI engaged in more in-depth memo-writing to identify the relationships between
focused codes within and across the prosecuted and non-prosecuted groups (Charmaz,
2006). This was an iterative process whereby the PI would examine differences between
the focused codes of the prosecuted and non-prosecuted groups, ask key questions about
those differences, and then write a memo about the differences found and why they may
exist. Some of these questions included: How are individual victims’ experiences similar
or different from other victims’ experiences within the prosecuted group? Do these
experiences change at different points in time? How are victims’ experiences within the

prosecuted group similar or different from victims’ experiences in the non-prosecuted

group (See Appendix C for sample memos)? In addition to comparing the codes to each

35

other (how is focused code A different than focused code B?), this allowed the analyst to
examine if codes should be combined to create a more parsimonious conceptual model of
victim treatment. In addition, memos help focused codes become conceptual ideas by
looking for processes in the data, which may include common themes and patterns among
several focused codes.

The third level of coding is axial coding, which involves relating categories to
subcategories to examine contingencies in the theory (Charmaz, 2006). For example, the
preliminary analyses showed that the relationship between the victim and offender may
differentially affect how victims are treated within the prosecuted and non-prosecuted
groups. Thus, the analyses examined victims’ interactions with detectives within and
across the prosecuted and non-prosecuted groups among three different types of victim-
offender relationships: intimate partners, acquaintances, and strangers. Within case
analysis was conducted to provide an in-depth understanding of the victim-offender
relationship and victims’ experiences with detectives (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). For
example, how did the detective treat a victim who was raped by an acquaintance? What is
distinct about the interactions with the detective for a victim who was raped by an
intimate partner? As the analyst examined each individual case within the context of the
victim-offender relationship, patterns emerged about the similarities and differences
among victims who raped by strangers, acquaintances, and intimate partners. Across case
analyses was performed to examine whether the victims’ experiences with detectives is
systematically related to victim-offender relationship. Here the analyst examined the
emerging patterns obtained from the within case analysis to understand if these patterns

were systematically related to victim-offender relationships, case outcomes, or both. For

36

example, within the prosecuted cases, how did the detectives’ treatment of victims raped
by intimate partners compare to the treatment of victims raped by strangers and
acquaintances? How did the detectives treat victims raped by strangers with prosecuted
cases compared to victims raped by strangers with non—prosecuted cases?
Enhancing Analytical Rigor

In qualitative research, rigor is evaluated by whether the investigator has
undertaken procedures to check the trustworthiness or believability, and credibility of the
conclusions drawn (i.e., that the interpretations do not simply reﬂect the researcher’s own
beliefs or perspectives) (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). To assess the trustworthiness of the
qualitative data, the transcriptions were checked against the tape recordings of the
interviews and corrected as needed. Following each interview, the audiotape was
transcribed verbatim by a professional transcriptionist, and then read by the researcher in
its entirety to check for accuracy. Another way to enhance trustworthiness is to have two
independent analysts coding the data. This strategy is particularly useful for qualitative
analyses aimed at testing hypotheses because the data is coded ﬁrst and then analyzed to
test the hypotheses. However, the constant comparative method of grounded theory is not
designed to assure that two analysts working independently will attain the same results
(Glaser & Strauss, 1967). That is, grounded theory involves an iterative process of
coding, writing memos to explain the data or begin formulating the theory, and coding
the data again to incorporate the emergence of new codes or theoretical categories
identiﬁed in the memos. Therefore, the codes are in a continual process of change as the
theory begins to develop. Instead, trustworthiness can be enhanced by discussing the

theoretical notions with someone familiar with the data and substantive area to identify

37

missing points, crosscheck points, or add points to the conceptual model. In the current
study, Dr. Rebecca Campbell interviewed some of the participants, read all of the
transcripts, and met regularly with the PI of the current study (Patterson) to discuss the
emerging themes. Therefore, Dr. Campbell provided feedback about the soundness of the
theoretical notions and identiﬁed gaps in the conceptual model. To further enhance
trustworthiness, an audit trail was developed to document procedural steps, decision rules
used to manage the data, and analysis operations (Strauss & Corbin, 1990).

To enhance credibility, the principal investigator systematically searched for
negative cases, alternative themes, divergent patterns, and rival explanations (Patton,
2002). This process involved looking for patterns that did not ﬁt the preponderance of
data. These negative cases or alternative themes provide insight into the instances and
cases that do not fit within the overall pattern of the data. These negative cases may be
the exception to the theory, or may indicate that the theory needs to be changed. The
negative case analyses will be presented in the results section.

To further enhance credibility, member checks were conducted whereby rape
victims who had experience with detectives were asked to provide feedback on the
study’s ﬁndings and conclusions. The member check sample included three victims who
reported their rape in the focal county. The average age of victim informants was 31
years old, with a range of 18 to 45 years old. Two victim informants were white and one
was African-American. The highest level of education varied among informants: one has
a high school diploma, one attended some college and one has a bachelor’s degree.
Member checks were conducted in a two-stage process. First, the victim informants were

asked to describe their experiences with the detectives. If the informants did not describe

38

some of the key themes, then the PI would ask an open-ended question around the theme.
For example, one theme was the pace of the questions asked by detectives. If the victim
informant did not provide that information during the description of their interactions
with the detective, then the PI would ask them to characterize the pace of the questions
asked by the detective. Second, the victim informants were told about the theory
developed from the study and requested feedback. Does this seem to ﬁt with your
experience? What is being overlooked or missing from this theory? Findings from
member checks of the victim informants will be included in the results section.

Another way to enhance credibility is to have the intended users of the theory
provide feedback (Patton, 2002). In the current study, victim advocates are the likely
users of the theory given their role in preventing detectives from engaging in hurtful
behavior with victims (i.e., secondary victimization). Additionally, advocates help
victims negotiate the process of interacting with the legal system (Martin, 2005). As such,
advocates acquire a great deal of information about how the legal system responds to
victims making them a suitable group to provide feedback about the theory (Campbell,
1998)

The sample of advocate informants included ﬁve advocates who had experience
working with rape victims in the context of crisis intervention and advocacy. The average
age of advocate informants was 36 years old, with a range of 28 to 51 years old. All of
the advocate informants were white. The highest level of education varied among
informants: two have attended some college, one has a bachelor’s degree, and two have
master’s degrees. The average years of experience providing advocacy was 7 years, with

a range of 3 to 10 years. The advocate member checks were conducted in a two-stage

39

process similar to that described previously for victims. First, the advocate informant was
asked to think about a recent case and describe their client’s experiences with the
detective. If the advocates did not describe some of the key themes, then the PI would ask
an open-ended question to probe for information about the theme. Second, an overview
of the theory was shown to the advocate informants and their feedback was requested.
Does this seem to ﬁt with the experiences of your clients? Can you think of cases in
which this theory does not apply? Do the results connect to how you observe detectives
engaging with victims? What is being overlooked or missing from this theory? The

results section includes the ﬁndings of the member checks from the advocate informants.

40

RESULTS

This purpose of this study is to build a theory that explains how the interactions
between the victim and detective affect the quality of the investigation itself. There were
three main research questions guiding the current study: 1) what are the case antecedents
(e.g., victim, offender, and case characteristics) that differentiate prosecuted and non-
prosecuted cases before detective involvement in case; 2) how do victims perceive how
they were questioned by their detectives and feel about the manner of questioning within
the context of case outcomes (i.e., prosecuted and non-prosecuted cases); and 3) how
does the perceived manner of questioning by detectives and its effect on victims
inﬂuence the victims’ subsequent level of engagement with the investigation. To answer
these research questions, qualitative interviews with 20 adult rape victims will be
analyzed to understand their experiences with detectives from police departments within
one focal county in the Midwest. The results are organized by research question,
followed by an analysis of negative cases, and conclude with a summary of the member
checks.
Research Question #1: Case Antecedents

The ﬁrst research question in this study was: what are the case antecedents that
differentiate prosecuted and non-prosecuted cases before detective involvement in the
cases? Speciﬁcally, this study examined contextual information about the victim,
offender, the rape itself, and if an arrest of the offender occurred early in the case.
Descriptive data were collected to document: 1) case outcome (whether the case was
ultimately prosecuted by the criminal justice system); 2) victim characteristics (e. g., age);

3) offender characteristics (e. g.,, race); and 4) case characteristics (e.g., early arrest).

41

Descriptive information about the sample is provided in Table 1-3. In each of
these tables, descriptive information is presented for: 1) the entire sample (all participants
who reported their assaults) (N=20); 2) the subsample of participants with prosecuted
cases (N=9); and 3) the subsample of participants with cases that were not prosecuted
(N=1 1). Table 1 summarizes victim demographics. Of all reported cases, the mean age of
victim participants was 28 years old (SD = 10.74), with a range of 18 to 53 years old.
Eighty-ﬁve percent of the participants were white, which is similar to the demographic
make-up of the focal county. The highest level of education varied among participants:
20% attended high school but did not graduate, 30% have a high school diploma, 40%

attended some college, and 10% have a bachelor’s or master’s degree.

42

Table 1

Demographics of Victims (Percentage or Mean)

 

 

Demographics of Victims All Cases Prosecuted Non-
(N=20) Cases Prosecuted
(N=9) Cases
(N=11)
Age in years (mean) 28.05 (10.74) 31.78 (12.75) 25.00 (8.16)
Race/Ethnicity
White 85% (N=17) 100% (N=9) 73% (N=8) '
African-American 10% (N=2) 0% (N=0) 18% (N=2)
Albanian 5% (N=l) 0% (N=0) 9% (N=1)
Education
Some high school 20% (N=4) 22% (N=2) 18% (N=2)
High school diploma 30% (N=6) 33.5% (N=3) 27.5% (N=3)
At least some college 50% (N=10) 44.5% (N=4) 54.5% (N=6)

 

Note: Standard deviation in parentheses

Table 2 displays offender characteristics for all reported cases, prosecuted cases,

and non-prosecuted cases. Sixty percent of the offenders were white. In examining the

victim-offender racial composite, 55% of the victims and their offenders were white, 10%

of the victims and their offenders were minorities, 30% of the victims were white while

their offenders were minorities, and 5% of the victims were minorities while their

offenders were white. In addition, most offenders did not use a weapon during the assault

(90%) but 10% drugged the victims.

43

Table 2

Demographics of Offender Characteristics (Percentages)

 

 

Offender Characteristics All Cases Prosecuted Non-
(N =20) Cases Prosecuted
(N=9) Cases
(N=11)
Race/Ethnicity
White 60% (N=12) 44.5% (N=4) 73% (N=8)
African-American 30% (N=6) 33.5% (N=3) 27% (N=3)
Latino 5% (N=l) 11% (N=1) 27% (N=0)
Asian 5% (N=1) 11% (N=1) 27% (N=O)

Victim/Offender Racial Dyad

White victim/offender 55% (N=1 1) 44.5% (N=4) 64% (N=7)
Minority victim/offender 10% (N=2) 0% (N=0) 18% (N=2)
White victim/minority offender 30% (N=6) 55.5% (N=5) 9% (N=1)
Minority victim/white offender 5% (N=1) 0% (N=0) 9% (N=1)
Used weapon 10% (N=2) 0% (N=0) 18% (N=2)
Drugged victim 10% (N=2) 0% (N=0) 18% (N=2)

 

Table 3 displays case (i.e., assault) characteristics for all reported cases,
prosecuted cases, and non-prosecuted cases. The majority of participants were raped by
someone they knew, with 40% being raped by their partners (e. g., dating partner, spouse,
life-time partner), and 40% being raped by acquaintances (e.g., friends, coworker). Forty

percent of the women had consumed drugs or alcohol before the rape. Forty percent of

44

the participants reported receiving injuries in their anogenital area, and sixty percent

reported being injured on non-anogenital areas of their body (i.e., physical injury). Half

of the victims made a police report within a couple hours of the rape. In addition, half of

the offenders were arrested the same day as the victims’ reports, with the majority (58%)

of the arrests carried out by the responding ofﬁcer.

Table 3

Demographics of Case Characteristics (Percentages)

 

 

Demographics of Case All Cases Prosecuted Non-
Characteristics (N =20) Cases Prosecuted
(N=9) Cases
(N=11)

Victim/offender relationship

Stranger 20% (N=4) 22% (N=2) 18% (N=2)

Intimate/Familial 40% (N=8) 44.5% (N=4) 36.5% (N=4)

Acquaintance 40% (N=8) 33.5% (N=3) 45.5% (N=5)
Victim consumed drugs or alcohol 40% (N=8) 55.5% (N=5) 27.5% (N=3)
Victim endured injuries

Physical injury 60% (N=12) 67% =6) 54.5% (N=6)

Anogenital injury 40% (N=8) 44.5% (N=4) 36.5% (N=4)
Victim reported rape within 2 hours 50% (N=10) 67% (N=6) 36.5% (N=4)
Offender arrested on same day as 55% (N=1 l) 89% (N=8) 27% (N=3)

report

 

45

In examining this descriptive data, it appears that there are different proﬁles
regarding the victim (e. g., race) and case characteristics (e.g., arrest) between the
prosecuted and non-prosecuted cases. Prior literature suggests that the legal system only
prosecutes those cases that law enforcement and prosecutors consider credible, with
victim and case characteristics used as indices of credibility. According to the literature,
law enforcement deem credible victims as middle-aged white women who were not
drinking prior to their assault, reported their rape immediately following the assault, and
endured injuries. In addition, cases viewed as credible often involved offenders who
belonged to a racial minority group and used a weapon.

In the current study, prosecuted cases had slightly older victims than non-
prosecuted cases (average age of 32 years old vs. 25 years old) and all of the women in
the prosecuted cases were white. Prosecuted cases had a higher percentage of offenders
from racial minority groups than non-prosecuted cases (56% vs. 27%) and a lower
percentage of white offenders (45% v3. 73%). In examining the victim/offender racial
dyad, prosecuted cases had a much higher percentage of white victims and minority
offenders than non-prosecuted cases (56% vs. 9%). Similarly, prosecuted cases had a
slightly lower percentage of white victims and white offenders than non-prosecuted cases
(45% vs. 64%). However, none of the cases involving minority victims were prosecuted
regardless of the offenders’ race.

Regarding case characteristics, only two cases involved the offender using
weapons, and both cases were not prosecuted because the offenders were strangers who
were never caught. Similar to more recent studies, the victim-offender relationship

appears to be no different for prosecuted and non-prosecuted cases (Spears & Spohn,

46

1996, 1997). Prior research also showed that participants with injuries are considered by
the legal system as another indicator of credibility. In the current study, prosecuted cases
had a slightly higher percentage of women with physical injury (67% vs. 55%) than non-
prosecuted cases. Additionally, prosecuted cases had a slightly higher percentage of
anogenital injury (45% vs. 37%) compared to non-prosecuted cases. Victims reporting
immediately following the rape are another indicator of credibility to legal system
personnel. Cases that were prosecuted had a higher percentage of participants who
reported within two hours following the assault compared to non-prosecuted cases (67%
vs. 36%). The ﬁnal indicator of credibility is whether or not the victim consumed alcohol
or illegal drugs. That is, the legal system personnel regard victims who consume alcohol
or drugs prior to their rape as less credible than those who did not. However, prosecuted
cases in the current study had a higher percentage of participants who consumed alcohol
or drugs than non-prosecuted cases (56% vs. 28%). A closer examination of the
prosecuted cases showed that most women consumed alcohol three to seven hours prior
to their rape. Thus, it may be possible that alcohol use has less weight as an indicator of
credibility or other indices held more weight in the decisions of legal system personnel.
In addition to victim credibility, prior literature suggests that detectives are more
likely to forward cases that require less effort and have more available evidence.
Particularly, prior literature suggests that detectives are more likely to forward cases
when the offender is already in custody because it that require less investigational effort.
Thus, a low effort case for a detective would include the offender being arrested rather
early in the case and often by the responding officer prior to the detective’s involvement.

Thus, the detective would not have to complete paperwork for an arrest warrant or

47

formally request the arrest warrant from a judge. Additionally, the detective would not
have to search the whereabouts of the offender. On the other hand, a high effort case
would require this additional work (e.g., obtaining an arrest warrant) by the detective in
order to arrest the offender. In the current study, prosecuted cases had a higher percentage
of arrests that occurred on the same day as the victims’ initial report compared to non-
prosecuted cases (89% vs. 27%).

Similar to prior research, the ﬁndings for Research Question #1 suggest that legal
system personnel may be basing their decisions in part on credibility of the victim and
effort required of the detective. In addition, legal system personnel may be basing their
decisions on any available evidence collected in the case. Law enforcement detectives
typically receive the responding ofﬁcers’ reports prior to interviewing the victim, which
often includes demographic information about the victim and offender, the context of the
assault (e.g., drinking), injuries on the victim’s body, and the date of the assault and
report (i.e., how long it took the victim to report). Thus, detectives may already have
preconceived notions of the victims’ credibility prior to their interview with the victim. In
the current study, it appears that factors of credibility and effort were inﬂuential in the
nature of the questioning, which will be presented in the subsections throughout the
results.

Research Question #2: Victims Perceptions of Questioning

The second research question in this study was: how do victims perceive how
they were questioned by their detectives and how do victims feel about this manner of
questioning. The participants discussed three overarching themes when describing their

interview experiences with the detectives. First, the participants discussed the pacing of

48

the questions delivered by the detectives. Second, the participants discussed the manner
in which the detectives asked the questions such as if the detective was compassionate or
cold towards the victims. Finally, the participants discussed the content of the
communication with the detectives; speciﬁcally whether the detectives communicated.
that they did or did not believe the victims. In addition, the participants identiﬁed how
this manner of questioning by the detectives made them feel, which is discussed
throughout these three overarching themes. As the following analyses demonstrate,
victims who experienced gentle and compassionate questioning had substantially
different feelings about their interviews with the detectives than victims who experienced
harsh questioning.

Pacing of Questions. The participants with prosecuted cases described the
detectives’ pacing of questions substantially different than participants with non-
prosecuted cases. In prosecuted cases, many women reported that their detectives did not
begin the interview by asking questions but instead consoled and built rapport with the
women prior to asking any questions about the assault. Rape is an act of unwanted sexual
penetration committed by use or threat of force, which leaves victims feeling vulnerable
and powerless (Bletzer & Koss, 2006). Therefore, detectives building rapport prior to the
interview may help victims feel safe with the detectives, as illustrated in the following
example. In this ﬁrst example, a 23 year old white female had a manicure at a nail salon.
The male Vietnamese nail technician offered to provide a free massage and raped her
during the massage. The participant called 911 as soon as she left the salon and entered
her vehicle. A few ofﬁcers and two detectives responded immediately and arrested the

offender while the victim was still in the parking lot of the salon. The case was charged

49

and is pending a preliminary hearing. In this exchange, the participant describes how two
detectives approached her at the crime scene immediately following the rape and explains

the importance of this response.

4129: They were consoling, careful, you know. They didn ’t bombard me, a
man had just assaulted me. I felt calmness right away

Interviewer (I): Would you attribute the calmness to,

4129: I felt safe they were, you know they come out and they were
consoling. They weren’t question, question, question. They made sure that
I was OK and safe, felt safe there.

I: So not being bombarded with questions, made you feel more safe with them?

1: Yeah, they just sent me to the car, let me sit down and be away from the
building and they didn ’t come at me right away wanting to know this, this
and this. They gave me my time and my space.

1: Why is that important to do?

4129: Because one, you ’ve just been sexually assaulted by a man. The last

thing she needs is a man on a power trip. Someone coming at her,

demanding things ﬁ'om her when one they didn’t even ask, they just took.

And you ’re not in a normal state of mind when you ’re going through; after

something like that happens. You need somebody, you need people to be

careful with you and be careful of the way they talk to you and treat you

and approach you, because the way I look at it now, I don ’t know this man.

I don ’t trust anyone.

As illustrated by this participant, it was important for the male detectives, whom
she just met and does not know, to help her feel safe because she had just been raped by a
man that she just met and did not know. In addition, when the participant describes what
she does not need from the detectives, (“someone coming at her, demanding things from

her when one they didn’t even ask, they just took”), she actually is describing her

offender during the rape. The participant needs the detectives to be different from the

50

offender in order to feel safe and comfortable with them. Building rapport with the
victims prior to the interview is one mechanism by which the detectives helped these
victims feel comfortable.

Women with prosecuted cases also reported that the detectives asked questions
during the interview at a pace that felt comfortable to the victims, told them to take their
time when recounting the rape, and in some instances paused the questioning when the
victims became emotionally distressed. Many participants with prosecuted cases also
described their detectives’ style of questioning as gentle by encouraging the victim to
“tell more” about the rape instead of demanding answers. This next example is a
continuation of the interview discussed earlier. In this example, the participant discusses

the manner of the detectives questioning during the interview.

I: What is it they did that was consoling?

4129: Just their approach, their demeanors, the way they spoke to you.

They weren ’t forceful, they weren’t bossy, they were careful. The way

that they approached me, the way they talked to me. They treated me. It

wasn ’t like. Any other case they would have been bam, bam, barn,

questions, we just want answers, blah, blah blah. We want this, this and

this.

As illustrated by this quote, the detectives had a consoling gentle approach with
the participant; they were careful in their questioning and not demanding answers.
Similar to this participant, many of the women described their detectives as protective
and expressed feeling safe with them.

By contrast, participants with non-prosecuted cases described the detectives pace

of questioning as rapid and forceful. Unlike the prosecuted cases, detectives began the

51

interviews with the questioning instead of building rapport or even inquiring about the
victims’ well-being. Similar to participants with prosecuted cases, participants with non-
prosecuted cases experienced post-assault emotional distress during the interviews but
this distress was either not recognized or mentioned by the detectives. Instead, women in
non-prosecuted cases often noted that the detectives began the interviews in ways that
made them feel unsafe or uncomfortable. In the next example, a 41 year old white female
was raped by her estranged white husband. The participant met her husband at a bar to
discuss issues of the divorce settlement. She had two drinks and then blacked out. She
woke up three hours later in her husband’s truck and was naked from the waist down.
The participant went home and began vomiting intermittently for several hours. After
twelve hours, the woman sought medical care at a hospital because she still felt ill. The
hospital contacted law enforcement when the victim requested to be tested for rape-
facilitated drugs. The offender stated it was consensual and showed the police pictures of
the victim’s genitalia. The woman stated that the detective requested that she sign a
waiver of prosecution but she refused. That is, the detective wanted the victim to sign a
legal form stating that she no longer wished the case to be prosecuted even though the
participant had consistently expressed her interest of participating in prosecution. The
offender was never arrested or charged for the rape. In this example, the detective asked
the participant to come into the department on a Sunday when the building had few
occupants in it. The woman felt physically unsafe with the detective who never built
rapport with the victim.

4125: When he let me in, we walked straight through the back and I

looked around at all these desks and there was no one there. Then we

took a right into the detective area and there was no one in there. Then
we walked through another section of offices into a closed door room that

52

was smaller, about half the size of this room. It was like a 6 x 6 foot room.

And he was literally that far away from me. I didn’t understand why a

detective that was a brand new detective would want to speak to a rape

victim when there is no one else in the police station. I felt completely on

guard. And then I’m gonna sit in a closed door room with this person and

explain to him all about my rape after I know damn good and well he has

got copies of all the pictures [of her genitalia ].

As illustrated in this example, the participant feels physically uncomfortable
being in a small room with the detective who may have viewed pictures of her genitalia.
Hence, the victim is being interviewed while feeling vulnerable, uncomfortable, and
guarded. Building a rapport with the victim may have provided an interview environment
that felt safer for this victim. Other participants expressed feeling uncomfortable with the
types of questions asked by the detectives from the beginning of the interviews. In the
next example, a 35 year old Albanian female who immigrated to the United States ten
year ago was raped by her white husband while she was trying to sleep. The woman
talked with her parents about the ongoing abuse the next afternoon and then made a
police report with the detective. The offender was arrested while the victim was making
the report. The perpetrator was charged with a domestic violence misdemeanor charge
but not a felony rape charge. The case was resolved through a plea bargain. In this

example, the participant discusses the ﬁrst few minutes of her interview with the

detective.

4126: Actually, I’m not happy how he was acting.

I: What was it that didn’t make you too happy?

4126: First, when I sit down, ﬁrst question, I think the ﬁrst one, it was, he
asked me if I ’m citizenship in here.

53

I: How did you feel about that?

4126: I didn ’t feel good at all.

I: So, the reason he asked you for citizenship, did you understand why he
was asking you?

4126: Right, because I wasn ’t there for that and I thought he don ’t have any
right to ask me that question.

In this situation, the participant’s husband often told the victim that it is her duty to have
sex with him because she is a “foreigner;” that is “what she is for” (i.e., her purpose is to
serve him sexually). In addition, her husband frequently informed her that law
enforcement would not help her because she was a “foreigner.” Therefore, a question
about her citizenship automatically made her feel uncomfortable and guarded with the
detective. In addition, the detective never explained why he inquired about her citizenship
and did not calm her concerns that her citizenship would not be a barrier to receiving help
from the legal system. As a result, this participant expressed feeling anxiety about
providing her account of the victimization because she feared the detective would doubt
her if her story was reported imperfectly. Similarly, other women reported that the
questions in the beginning of their interviews were less focused on the factual
information regarding the assault (i.e., what happened, when did it happen, and where did
it happen) and more focused on the victim and her reaction to the rape, which made them
feel uncomfortable. Therefore, many participants with non-prosecuted cases began the
interview process feeling uncomfortable instead of safe with their detectives.

Participants with non-prosecuted cases expressed feeling rushed during the

interviews and described the interview experience as being “drilled” with a long

54

succession of questions. This quick succession of questioning felt forceful to the
participants, like the questions were being “pushed” onto the victims. In the next
example, a 21 year old white female was raped by her white ex-boyfn'end who is also the
father of her child. The participant had ended the relationship a few days prior to the rape
but they continued to live in the same household. After the rape, the participant locked
herself in a room and called the hotline of the local rape crisis center and was encouraged
to call the police. The offender was arrested immediately by the responding ofﬁcers and
prior to the arrival of the two detectives assigned to the case. The offender was charged
with a domestic violence misdemeanor charges but not a felony rape charge. The case
was resolved through a plea bargain. In this illustration, the participant describes the two
detectives’ manner of questioning, which took place in her home following the arrest of

her ex-boyfriend.

4127: But when the detectives came in they were cold towards me and
just started automatically saying why, you know, why didn ’t you do these
things, it made it harder for me to talk about.

I: There were 6 men in your home at this time; 2 detectives, 4 cops. Was
there just one asking you questions or were multiple ones asking you
questions?

4127: No, it was really one person. They [two detectives] were
alternating kind of like, Well why didn ’t you hit him? Why didn ’t you
yell? You know, why didn ’t, why didn ’t you hit him? Why didn ’t you try
to get away ﬁ'om him? 1 don’t know how to get away from him for one.
He’s a guy; he’s bigger than me and he’s stronger than me and he ’3 my
kid ’sfather.... And they ’re asking me like why didn ’t you hit him? Why
would I hit him? Why would I yell? Why would I scream? His
grandfather’s in the other room and he’s deaf -— he can’t hear. My child’s
in the other room, on the other side of us. Why would I wake her up and
have her walk into that? I was uncomfortable with the detectives. I felt
like they were kind of grilling me ...like when the detectives were pushing
me, they were kind of like shoving the questions on me, one after another

55

after another.... They weren ’t giving me, like, the option of slowing it
down.

In this situation, the detectives did not build rapport instead the detectives began the
interview by questioning her response to the rape, which made her uncomfortable.
Additionally, the woman describes the detectives questioning her in a manner that felt
rapid and forceful from the very beginning of the interview. As mentioned earlier,
detectives who ask question in a forceful manner are likely to bear a resemblance to their
very recent victimization. In fact, participants who experienced forceful-like questioning
used violent terms to describe their interview experience with detectives such as “pushing
me,” “shoving questions,” or “drilling.” A3 a result of the detectives’ manner of
questioning and absence of rapport building, some women expressed feeling distressed,
guarded, and uneasy during the interviews with their detectives. Similar to this
participant, other women with non-prosecuted cases expressed having difﬁculty talking
about their rape when the detectives were asking questions in a forceful manner.

Compassion. In addition to the pace of questioning, participants whose cases were
eventually prosecuted described the detectives’ degree of compassion (e. g., friendliness,
empathy) during the interviews considerably different than participants with non-
prosecuted cases. In prosecuted cases, the participants reported that their detectives
treated them kindly, with respect and sensitivity. This response from the detectives made
the victims feel cared about and supported. For instance, a 20 year old white female was
raped by a white male that she began dating recently. Similar to past dates, the participant
went to the offender’s home for a drink and conversation. On this date, the offender

requested oral and anal sexual activity, which made the woman feel uncomfortable.

56

When the participant declined, the offender became aggressive and raped her. After the
victim left the offender’s home, she disclosed to her mom and went to the emergency
department immediately. The offender was arrested by the responding ofﬁcers on the
same day. The case was charged and is pending a trial. In this example, the participant

discusses why she believed her detective cared about her.

4130: I mean, that day when I met with him it seemed like he [detective]

genuinely cared. He told me you know, he [offender] lawyered up. You

know, he was telling me things that, you know, he didn’t have to tell me

that (offender) was claiming that sex didn’t even happen. He didn’t have

to tell me that. It’s not anywhere written where he has to tell me what is in

those records, but he was. So, I mean, it seemed like he cared.

Similarly, many participants believed that their detectives were “on their side” and cared
about them when information was shared with them.

In addition, many women noted that the detectives did not blame them for causing
their rape even though some participants were engaged in activities that commonly
receive victim-blaming responses (e. g., alcohol and drug use) (F ilipas & Ullman, 2001).
In the next example, a 26 year old white female was watching a baseball game at a bar
with her sister. After the bar, they went to an apartment of an acquaintance because her
sister was seeking to purchase cocaine. The participant became separated from her sister
and an African-American male (stranger) offered her a ride. The woman accepted and
was raped by the offender prior to taking her to the sister’s home. The woman disclosed
to her sister and they drove to the police department within a couple of hours following

the rape. The offender was arrested within an hour of her report and prior to the

detectives’ involvement. The case was charged and resolved through a plea bargain. In

57

this example, the participant discusses the detectives’ reactions when they found out that

the victim was associated with buying cocaine.

4121 .' I don 't know the detectives once they found out, once the detectives

talked to me, you know, the detectives told me no matter what, you know,

that that [the rape] wasn ’t right. That they were going to be on my side.

While alcohol and drug use is often related to rape cases being dropped, it is
important to note that the offender was arrested prior to the detectives’ involvement by
the responding ofﬁcers who caught the offender on a bus “trying to leave town.” In
addition, the offender was an African-American male with a criminal record, which prior
research has suggested is a more likely offender to be charged for rape (Frohmann, 1997).
Furthermore, the offender confessed to the crime early in the investigation. Thus, the
offender characteristics plus an early arrest and confession may have been more
inﬂuential in the legal system personnel’s decision making than the victim’s association
with drug dealing. In any event, the absence of victim blaming stood out for participants
with prosecuted cases suggesting this is a common concern for victims, as found by prior
literature (Fraser & Haney, 1996; Patterson, Greeson, & Campbell, 2008). Furthermore,
the absence of victim blaming in the detectives’ questioning made the participants feel
more comfortable with the interviewing process.

Additionally, the participants explained that the detectives displayed concern for
their safety and physical and emotional well-being, resulting in victims feeling
understood by their detectives; they were affected by a terrifying crime. This display of
compassion was evident by the gentle pacing of questioning (as discussed above) but

detectives also displayed compassion beyond the questioning by tending to the victims’

58

well-being. Participants reported that the detectives listened to their stories and concerns
intently. Participants with prosecuted cases often mentioned that the detectives offered to
help the women in anyway they needed. Detectives also offered or provided assistance to
victims that went above and beyond their role as investigators. In the next example, a 32
year old white female was raped by her white long-term partner who is also the father of
her two children. The participant had two drinks several hours prior to going to bed. She
woke up when her partner began raping and beating her. Afterwards, she escaped into the
bathroom and called 911. The offender was arrested by the responding officers
immediately upon their arrival and prior to the detective’s involvement. The offender was
charged with rape and the case was resolved through a plea bargain. In this example, the

participant discusses what was helpful about the detective.

4109: He was very down to earth. He’s a father. He has daughters and

stuff He’s a very down to earth, did whatever he could to, he’s still helps

us... You know, anytime I call him, he’s, he even stopped by the house one

day and had coffee for like an hour. He’s very good. He’s been very

helpful, very understanding, you know, he’s talked to my kids a few times,

just as, you know, buddies...
In this situation, the participant had expressed her concerns to the detective about how the
rape, domestic violence, and absence of her husband (offender) would affect her kids. In
an attempt to ease the woman’s concerns, the detective had informal conversations with
her children. As a result of the displayed compassion, many victims with prosecuted
cases believed that their detectives understood what they were experiencing as victims of

crime. In addition to being helpful, this participant points out the detective is down to

earth. Similarly, many participants with prosecuted cases mentioned their detectives

59

being personable and casual, which made it easier for the victims to relate and talk with
the detectives.

By comparison, participants with non—prosecuted cases noted that their detectives
exhibited insensitive behavior (e. g., victim blaming) towards them. Participants described
their detectives as arrogant, detached or cold, and lacking compassion, and thus believed
that their detectives did not care about them or their case. In this next illustration, a 22
year old African American female was raped by her male African American ex-long term
partner who is also the father of her children. The offender raped her at her home and
took her cell phone before leaving. The woman contacted the police later in the day when
she could access a phone. The offender was held in jail for approximately twelve hours
but the victim was never notiﬁed of the offender’s release. The participant has made
several attempts to contact the detective to further express her interest in pursuing this
case but has not heard from the detective for ten months. In this exchange, the participant

explains how she would have preferred the detective to treat her.

I: What would you have liked her [detective] to do?

4124: I would have liked her to do more than what she did. Act like she
cared. Act like if she was the female put in my position what would she

have done? She acted like she didn ’t care, like it didn ’I happen.

Not surprisingly, this participant, as well as other victims with non-prosecuted
cases, expressed feeling ignored and unimportant to the detectives. These women wanted
their detectives to care about them and consider their feelings. Therefore, victims

expressed feeling hurt when they believed that their detectives did not care about them.

60

Participants with non-prosecuted cases felt their detectives viewed them as a case
on their docket rather than a recently victimized human who needs support. While
participants in prosecuted cases described their detectives as tending to their well-being
and showing concern, participants in non-prosecuted cases reported that their detectives
were impersonal and never inquired about how they were doing. Participants expressed
needing emotional support during the interviews but felt their detectives were
unsupportive. Some of the women indicated that their detectives did not understand that
the interview process was humiliating and exhausting. In addition to overlooking the
victims’ well-being, some victims noted their detectives were particularly mean towards
them during the interview. In the next instance, a 19 year old white female was recently
discharged from a substance abuse rehabilitation facility. She was raped by a friend
(white male) while visiting him. After leaving his home, the participant called her
narcotics anonymous sponsor who encouraged her to tell her mother. The woman
disclosed to her mother who called the police. The offender was arrested the same night
as the report prior to the detective’s involvement. The woman felt doubted by the
detective from the beginning of the interview with him. The victim’s case was referred by
the detective but not charged by the prosecutor due to lack of evidence. In this next
exchange, the participant describes how she was treated by the detective during the

interview.

4107: I had to go to the Police Department and tell them my story, and he
[detective] just, I felt like I was wrong and I shouldn’t have been there,
like I, it was so, he was just so mean to me, kept questioning everything
that I said, he made me so uncomfortable...He was just so mean to me.
You would think that they would care about people, but they didn ’t.

61

I: If you were to give advice to a detective who’s about to meet with a rape
survivor to report, what advice would you give him or her?

4107: Just to stay on my level. Talk to me like I’m a human being not like
I ’m a criminal. I just wanted them to be therefor me, to help me, to tell me
what was going on, to understand, to help me out, rather than push me
away... He used this huge word. 1 can’t remember what it was, and I
asked him what that meant, and what do you mean by that, and he said,
“What, you don’t know? Why don ’t you look it up? ” I said, “Okay,

thanks, ” you know. I felt stupid. I don ’t know, maybe I ’m supposed to
know everything that they say, but I don ’t.

This example points out the woman wanting the detective to care and understand.
This participant also wanted the detective to “stay on my level,” which the participant
later clariﬁed as being down to earth and communicating in everyday language. As
illustrated by this participant, the detectives’ treatment of victims’ can affect their level of
comfort during the interview. Additionally, mocking a victim for not understanding a
term could affect the ﬂow of communication during the interview. That is, victims may
not continue to inquire about the deﬁnition of terms used by the detectives when mocked.
The legal system is complex and ﬁlled with numerous legal terms typically unknown to
the general population. Therefore, a victim who does not understand terms used by
detectives cannot answer the questions correctly unless they seek clariﬁcation of the
terms.

Communicating Opinions of Believability. Prior analyses showed that
participants’ perceptions of the manner in which detectives delivered their questions were
substantially different between prosecuted and non-prosecuted cases. Additionally,
participants with prosecuted cases described the content of the communication with

detectives as considerably different than participants with non-prosecuted cases,

62

speciﬁcally around communication of belief or disbelief of victims’ stories. In prosecuted
cases, the participants expressed feeling believed by their detectives because of
statements made by the detectives or by their behavior. For example, many participants
reported that their detectives verbalized being on the “victims’ side,” which indicated
being believed to the participants. Some women expressed their detectives believed them
because of the information relayed about their offenders. In the next example, the
participant’s case was prosecuted and the offender was found guilty by trial. The
participant was a 53 year old white female raped in her apartment by an African
American neighbor after forcing his way into her apartment. The woman did not have a
phone and thus, called 91 1 when her next door neighbor came home (approximately
within an hour after the assault). The offender was arrested by the responding ofﬁcer that
evening before the detective’s involvement in the case. In the following illustration, the

participant describes how the detectives were mocking the offender’s story.

4108: From the beginning he [offender] tried to say it was consensual,

and if I remember correctly, they [detectives] kind of laughed at that, you

know, like, “Oh, you know, I don’t have bruises like this ﬁom consensual

sex, you know, ”
As illustrated, the detectives shared the offender’s account of the story with the
participant, but followed this disclosure by mocking the offender’s defense, which made
the woman feel believed. Similarly, other participants reported feeling believed by their

detectives when information was shared about their offenders including their account of

the rape and prior or pending convictions.

63

Detectives’ level of effort in the investigation was another indicator of belief by
the participants. Some women noted that the detectives were investing a great amount of
effort into their cases, which was an indication that they believed the victims. In the next
example, a 45 year old white female visited her female white neighbor and husband who
were married recently and moving to another state. The participant had a few drinks
during her visit and returned home later in the evening. Her neighbor’s husband stopped
by her home later that evening under the pretense of dropping off their forwarding
address. She let him in her home to obtain the piece of paper, which actually contained a
sexually suggestive note written by the offender. He raped her immediately after she read
the note. The woman disclosed to her boss the next morning who encouraged her to
report the rape to the police. The detectives responded to her home and arrested the
offender the same day. He was found guilty by a jury trial. In this exchange, the
participant identiﬁes why she thought her detectives believed her even though they never

verbally expressed belief.

4111: The detectives they believed me, they never said, I believe you,
[survivor name]. But just their work ethic and how they handled
themselves and how they talked to me and treated me is you can tell.

I: Say a little bit about that, how did they treat you that told you they
believed you? What did they do that told you that?

4111: They just intently listened to me and did what they do, being
detectives and trying to ﬁnd a bad person, you know, the computers and
driving here and staking out over here waiting for him. And I mean, they
did their job, I mean everybody has a job. And you do it to the best of
your ability. Yes we all have bad days, but they just did their job and very
professionally and very well and um, like I said, how they treated me, they
talked to me, they looked at me, I’m going to say they believed me. I ’m
just assuming they believed me because they were there helping me and
doing their job and trying to catch this guy. But, they just made me feel so

64

good and that I was doing the right thing and I mean to me there was no
doubt that they ever thought for a minute that I was lying, never for a
minute. They all believed me, none of them said a bad word like you
deserved it or you know, you are bad. You know, nothing, absolutely
nothing. I didn ’t feel that I had to prove it and I think the reason I didn’t
is because everybody was on my side, everybody was so just wonderful.

Similar to others, this participant reasoned that the detectives would not
investigate the case so thoroughly and exhibit so much effort if they did not believe the
rape happened. In addition, this participant was treated compassionately by the
detectives, which made her feel believed. Taken together, the detectives’ effort in her
case and compassionate treatment put the woman at ease; she did not have to prove being
raped to the detectives.

By contrast, some participants with non-prosecuted cases reported that the
detectives verbally communicated their opinions of disbelief. That is, detectives told the
participant that they did not believe their account of the rape or that they believed the
offender more than the victim. In the next example, an 18 year old white female was in
the parking lot of her workplace while on a break talking to an African American male
casual friend. Her friend raped her in his car; afterwards she returned to work to ﬁnish
her shift. She called the hotline of the local rape crisis center who encouraged her to
receive a forensic examination. During the exam, the participant declined to speak to the
police officer but accepted the phone number of the police department. The woman made
the police report two days after the assault. The offender was never arrested and the case
was not charged. In this illustration, the participant describes how the detective

communicated disbelief of the victim’s story.

65

4114: She [detective] questioned me again about the positioning, and told

me like, “ What he said makes more sense than what you ’re saying. ” She

was kind of like, “1 don’t understand how this could happen. Show it to

me. ” I had to position my chair next to me and show her exactly what

happened. She said she was just doing her job, and being thorough. It

made me feel hurt because she pretty much saying she believes him and

not me ” She made comments about, “If you ’re lying, you can back out

now, and we won ’1 press charges, ” and so it really kind of scared me, like

well, what if he somehow passes this test that they wont charge him with

rape and that would be awful.

While cases involving African-American offenders are often prosecuted, there are
two other factors about this case that may have inﬂuenced it being dropped. First, the
participant had recently ﬁnished a day treatment program for people with mental
illnesses. In fact, the participant reported that her mental illness became a focus of the
investigation. For example, the detective interviewed her ex-boyfriend and her friends at
work to inquire about the woman’s prior hospitalization and mental health. Second, the
victim did not make a police report until two days after the rape and continued working at
her place of employment (also place of the crime scene). While the participant returned to
her employment because of ﬁnancial obligations, it may be possible that the detective
viewed this action as lacking credibility. That is, detectives are sometimes suspicious of
delayed reporting and may have believed that the impact of the rape should have
prevented the victim from returning to work (Kerstetter, 1990). Thus, it is likely that
these factors played a role in the case being dropped.

Similar to this participant, other women with non-prosecuted cases were told they

could “back out” if they were lying and in some cases participants were warned that they

could be charged for lying. In one case, the victim reported that her detective requested

66

she take a polygraph. Not surprisingly, these participants felt like they were being treated
like the criminal in the case instead of the victim and were afraid of being charged with
false reporting. Many participants also expressed feeling hurt because the detective did
not believe their accounts of the rape.

In addition to these verbalized opinions of disbelief, participant reported other
indirect ways that detectives communicated their disbelief. Some women reported that
the detectives questioned numerous parts of their story repeatedly, which indicated to the
participants that the detectives did not believe them. The participants believed the
detectives were “picking their stories apart” to ﬁnd ﬂaws with their accounts of the rape.
As noted in the previous example, a few of the participants had to reenact the positioning
of the rape because the victims’ stories “did not make sense” to the detectives.
Participants with prosecuted cases did not report this level of scrutiny by the detectives.
In addition, participants with non-prosecuted cases often expressed feeling judged by the
detectives. In the next example, a 22 year old white female contacted a white male friend
to bring her heroin. The woman passed out after using the heroin and was found naked in
a vacant home by the owners who contacted 911. The male friend told the police that he
had consensual sex with the victim. Additionally, the participant heard rumors in the
community that her friend (offender) let two of his acquaintances rape her. None of the
offenders were arrested or charged in the case. In this next exchange, the participant

discusses feeling judged by the detectives for using heroin.

I: What happened with the cops? Did they contact you again?

4120: They [detectives] said there was nothing they could do because D
[offender] said it was consensual. He said that I said that “if you get me

67

on drugs, I’ll make it worth your while” but I just wanted to use. There
was no evidence, basically what Ifigured they [detectives] seen me as an
addict, really I slipped up once and there was no evidence.

I: Do you think that your history [of drug use] affected the way they
believed you or,

4120: Yeah. Like I said, they probably just see me as a junkie

Many participants with non-prosecuted cases thought their detectives viewed
them as a stereotype (e. g., addict, foreigner, mentally ill, scorned woman in the case of
intimate partner rape), and thus did not believe them. These participants came to this
conclusion because the focus of the questioning was often around these stereotypes. For
example, the participant who was raped by her former boyfriend had ended the
relationship a few days prior to the rape because of his cheating. The detectives
continually questioned if she was making up the rape to seek revenge. This view of her as
a scorned woman became the central focus of their questioning. Although this victim
reported immediately following the rape and had visible injuries, the detectives told her
that they could not prove her case because the rape occurred so soon after the breakup.

As mentioned earlier, many participants reported experiencing negative responses
such as victim blaming very early in the interviews with detectives. Therefore, it may be
possible that the detectives had constructed images of the women or made decision about
the case prior to the interview, which will be highlighted in the subsequent example. In a
continuation of the interview discussed earlier (the victim who blacked out, awakening
partially naked in her husband’s truck and suspected that he drugged and raped her), the

participant discusses how the detective made a decision about her case prior to examining

68

all available evidence. This is the participant’s ﬁrst and only interview with the detective,

which took place one day after the initial report and rape.

4125: Yeah, he [detective] said you don ’t have a case. You never blacked
out. I said, excuse me? I said, I told you this, this, this, you know. Well,
you don ’t have a case....0kay, ﬁne, Detective 8., show me the evidence,
show me the lab results.

I: So that day. did he have any evidence from the lab?

4125: No. They said because of {a big case in the county} that the lab was
a little overbooked. So it was going to take a few weeks.

I: So how was he able to come to that conclusion if he didn’t even have
results yet?

4125: Because he says that I never blacked out.
I: And didn’t you say that you blacked out?
4125: Yes.

I: So, are they still waiting for results to officially drop the case or have
they already dropped your case?

4125: They’ve already dropped my case.

As illustrated in this example, the detective made a decision about the case
without all of the available evidence, which would have taken only take a few more
weeks to receive. The participant received the detective’s decision during the ﬁrst
interview. Thus, it is likely the detective already made a predetermined decision about the

case.

69

Research Question #3 .' Effect on Victims ’ Subsequent Level of Engagement with the
Investigation

The preceding analyses show that there are substantial differences in the
detectives’ manner of questioning between prosecuted and non-prosecuted cases. But,
how did experiences of gentle questioning and compassionate treatment, and feelings of
comfort and being cared about affect the victims’ level of engagement with the
investigation? Similarly, how did experiences of harsh questioning and cold treatment,
and feelings of discomfort and hurt affect the victims’ level of engagement with the
investigation? As the following analyses demonstrate, participants who had positive
experiences with their detectives had markedly different levels of engagement during the
interviews than victims who had negative experiences. Participants discussed two
overarching themes when describing the effect of the detectives’ manner of questioning
on victims’ subsequent level of engagement with the investigation. First, participants
discussed how their experiences with detectives inﬂuenced whether they were able to
fully disclose the details of their rapes with the detectives. Second, participants discussed
whether the manner in which the detectives asked the questions affected their
participation in the prosecutorial process.

Disclosure. In prosecuted cases, participants described their detectives as
displaying sensitivity and compassion towards them during the interviews, and
communicating belief of the victims’ stories, which made the women feel at ease with the
detectives. Participants with prosecuted cases noted that this manner of questioning made

them feel more comfortable sharing their stories with the detective, which subsequently

70

led to victims disclosing more information. This next example is a continuation of the
interview discussed earlier (the participant who was raped by the nail technician during a
massage and felt protected by the detectives because they built rapport prior to the
interview — see page 50 for details). Earlier in the interview, the participant described that
her detectives “gave her space and time” and identiﬁed the detectives allowing her to take
her time when telling her story as important. In the following exchange, the participant

explains why being allowed to go at her own pace was so important.

I: You mentioned taking your time....the detective letting you take your
time. Why is it important?

4129: Because it’s not about anybody else. It ’s not about them. It’s not
about what they want. It ’3 about you. You’re the victim. [I ’3 your life
that ’s just been demolished. You’re the one who ’3 mentally screwed up
right now...what she needs, what she wants-she better get it, because
that ’s the only way you’re going to honestly, if it had been any other way,
I probably wouldn ’t have remembered a lot of things. I would have been
ﬁustrated, ﬂustered, pissed off and then [probably wouldn ’t have as
strong a case as I do.

I: So letting them. Them letting you take your time, you were able to,

4129: Think about it. Remember every detail. Remember every detail. If
you’re in a rush and they ’re trying to push you 20 different directions,
you ’re going to forget things; you ’re going to feel like everybody ’s
pushing you for answers and you can ’t pull the pictures out of your head.
0K, OK, this is what was sitting on the table right here. That was the
picture on the wall, you know. You rush somebody, you boggle their
brain.

This participant illustrates that tending to the victim’s well-being and going at her
pace is important in helping her remember details. In her case, the detectives tended to
her well-being prior to conducting an interview and followed her pace during the

questioning. Speciﬁcally, the detectives did not question this victim until she felt safe,

71

which meant being interviewed away from the crime scene and allowing her to receive
emotional support from her family. The participant noted that the detectives were gentle
when asking her questions, validated the difﬁculty of being interviewed, and did not rush
her when answering the questions. The participant indicated that this gentle manner of
questioning helped her feel calm and safe, which helped her mind remain focused enough
to recall and disclose details of her rape and the surrounding environment.

Detectives tending to the victims’ emotional well-being and allowing victims to
take their time during the interview may also have additional advantages, as illustrated in
the following example. The next example involves an 18 year old white female who was
raped by a Latino co-worker during a midnight shift at a fast food restaurant. The
participant disclosed to another co-worker on a shift the following day because the victim
was scheduled to work with the offender again. When a police ofﬁcer entered the drive
thru for food, the woman decided to tell the ofﬁcer about the assault. The ofﬁcer
recognized the offender’s name because he was on a tether for prior convictions. The
offender was arrested the day following the report and the case ended in a plea bargain.
In this next exchange, the participant discusses how the detective’s pacing of the
interview helped the participant endure the emotionality of talking about her

victimization, which helped the participant continue the interview.

I: What was it like having to answer those questions?

4110: It felt like I was there again, and I didn ’t want to answer the
questions. It felt like [ was there, and it was happening again.

I: Did the detective do anything to try and help you through that?

72

4110: Yes, she slowed down. Like, she wasn ’t going fast, but if she noticed

that I was not, like handling it too well, she would slow it down and talk to

me, and help me through it and stuﬁf

As illustrated by the participant, the detective attended to the victim’s emotional
well-being by slowing the pace of the interview, which helped her through the ﬂashbacks
and continue the interview. While many law enforcement ofﬁcials denounce their role as
helping victims cope with the rape (Martin, 2005), responding to victims’ emotional
distress appears to help victims endure the investigational interview, contribute more
information to the investigation, and subsequently build a stronger case for prosecution.

In comparison, participants in non-prosecuted cases noted their detectives asked
questions in an insensitive cold manner during the interviews, and communicated
disbelief of the victims’ stories, which made the participants feel uncomfortable with and
hurt by the detectives. Some women indicated that feeling uncomfortable with the
detective made it difﬁcult to tell their story and led them to share fewer details about their
rape with the detectives. These participants stated that they would have disclosed more
information about their rape if they felt comfortable with their detectives. This next
example is a continuation of an interview discussed earlier (participant who had ended
the relationship a few days prior to the rape but they continued to live in the same
household and was “grilled” by two detectives who focused on their relationship — see
page 55 for details). In this exchange, the participant explains how the detectives’ manner

of questioning affected the information that she provided to them.

I: Ideally, what would you have liked the detectives to be like?

73

4127: I don ’t know if I necessarily wanna see compassionate or more,
more approachable than that. Just not like having the attitude, well, he ’s
saying this, he’s saying that. Oh yeah, he’s, so why would you mention
that to me? Who cares what he says? It ’s my word against his. Not
having that attitude where [ can’t talk to you, period. [ can’t really, really
tell you what happened because the attitude that you’re carrying with me
is that you really don ’t give a fuck is what it comes down to but, that
would be it, I’m sorry

I: no that’s ok. How would it have helped for them to, well basically to
give a fuck, I mean, how would that have helped? I mean, for you, what,
how would that have helped you?

4127: I don’t know if it necessarily would have helped me, but I think it
would have been more, I would have been more able to describe to them
what it was if they hadn ’t been cold or unapproachable, it would have
been easier for me to tell them, well, this is what it was; this is what he ’s
done; that ’s why we broke up. This is why he ’3 still here, you know. They
made me feel like a little kid when I was talking to them like, well, kind of
almost scolding me for letting him stay there. 1 have a father for that; I
don’t need you to tell me what I should and shouldn ’t do.

I: So you would have been able to give them, if] ’m understanding right,

you would have been able to give them more information had they
approached it differently?

4127: Yes

As illustrated by this participant, the detectives relayed information about the

offender in manner that made the victim feel disbelieved. In addition, the participant

found the detectives’ demeanor to be cold and unapproachable; the participant did not

feel they care about her. As a result of this, the participant cannot describe the rape or the

relationship. The lack of understanding around why the victim and offender continued to

live together and the nature of their breakup ultimately led to the case not being charged

for rape. When victims experience or anticipate negative responses by law enforcement,

they may engage in self-protective behaviors by withholding details of their rape,

74

especially if they anticipate the details will elicit judgmental or hurtful responses from
law enforcement.

Helping the victim feel comfortable during the interview appears to be important
in victims disclosing information about their rapes. This next example is a continuation of
the interview discussed earlier (the participant who was raped by her friend and called her
narcotics anonymous sponsor afterwards — see page 61). In this example, the participant
explains that she had difﬁculty sharing information about her rape because she did not

feel comfortable with the detective.

I: The other thing that you said is that he asked difficult questions. What
do you mean by difficult questions?

4107: Questions that [ can’t answer, that I don ’t want to answer. You
know, like, it was just like the whole night he was ask me questions, and I
don’t want to answer everything. He just couldn ’t understand that. I

wasn ’t comfortable. There’s things that [just didn’t want to talk about and
he held that against me.

I: So he didn 't understand that it was difﬁcult for you to talk about that?

4107: Right. All his questions that he asked, I answered, and then when he
made the scratches in his little notes. When [ﬁnally would answer he
would be mad because I didn’t talk, it’s not my fault I ’m not comfortable. I
can ’t just come out and tell my story in every little detail, I ’m not
comfortable with my story. [ don ’t like what happened.

I: And he was mad that you didn’t tell him everything? Did he ask, besides
being mad that you didn’t tell him a part of it, did he act any other way
about that?

4107: Well, my whole story was a lie because I didn ’t tell him everything

the ﬁrst time. There are bits and pieces that [just don ’t want to share. It
may sound stupid, it just makes me feel really gross.

75

This participant predicted that if the detective had established rapport with her,
then she would have been able to trust the detective and subsequently share details of the
rape. Again, it appears that victims may withhold information as a form of self-protection
if they experience or anticipate being hurt by the detective (e. g., blamed, judged, not
believed). In addition, this participant reported that her detective did not believe her
account of the rape because she did not share all of the details with him. Thus, detectives
may be less inclined to believe victims who withhold information or provide details later
in the interview, which ultimately affects the case outcome.

A few participants with non-prosecuted cases expressed feeling hopeless that
anything would happen with their case, which inﬂuenced telling less about their rape. For
example, one woman noted that she exerted less effort into writing her statement because
she believed that the detective would not proceed with her case. This participant began
experiencing feelings of hopelessness after her detective communicated disbelief of the
victim’s story. Overall, these participants felt hopeless that the system could or would
protect them from additional harm.

Victim Participation/ Withdrawal. As previously discussed, participants with
prosecuted cases reported that detectives interviewing with sensitivity helped them feel
comfortable enough to disclose their entire story. It also appears that this sensitive
questioning prevents some victims withdrawing their participation from the prosecutorial
process. This next example is a continuation of the interview discussed earlier (the victim
who was raped by her neighbor who forced his way into her apartment). In this example,

the participant explains what helped her continue participating in the legal process.

76

4108: [t was being treated with respect by the [responding] police
officers, and then being treated with respect by the nurse, and being
treated with respect by the people at the hospital, and the detective. I
mean, being treated with respect made it easier for me to continue with
the process.

I: How did that make it easier to continue, being treated with respect by
all of those people?

4108: Because, it’s like a stepping stone across a big river and the
respect is stone, so you ’re standing on that bit of respect and you can see
that, “Okay, they treated me with respect, so the next person will, ” you
know, at ﬁrst you ’re doing things because you have to or because you’re
urged to by someone else but every time you’re doing things you don ’t
want to do, there ’s no part of me that wanted to do any of this, and being
treated with respect each time I dealt with anybody from the system made
me feel that, “Okay, the next person will be just as respectful, ” and that, [
think, made it, was one of the biggest things to help me through the
process, is just being treated with respect and not being treated like I was
somehow at fault.

As the participant explains, the detective’s respectful treatment towards her, along
with other key professionals, helped her continue through each step of the legal process.
Each experience of respect built her conﬁdence that she would receive respect by the next
professional. If she had experienced disrespect with any one key professional, it may
have inﬂuenced her to withdraw from participating. In fact, a few other participants
predicted that they would have dropped their cases if they were treated disrespectfully by
their detectives, as illustrated below by the participant who was raped by the nail

technician during a massage.

I: If they didn’t care, would you have been more inclined to be like, “I ’m
done with this case ” or would it change that?

4129: [guess if I didn ’t feel like they had cared. I mean I guess I could ’ve
gone down that road, because mentally, you know, as screwy as this whole
situation has been for me. If nobody else cares, why should 1? Why
should I pursue if they don’t really give a shit. It ’s very easy to go down

77

that road. Suffering from depression and anxiety and can ’t think for

yourself most of the time.

As this participant illustrates, feeling cared about may play an important role in
preventing victims from withdrawing participation in the legal process. While the
positive treatment was inﬂuential in helping some participants continue with the
prosecutorial process, there were two other reasons unrelated to their experiences with
detectives that inﬂuenced participants to continue. First, most participants reported their
continued participation with the investigational process was related to their desire to
prevent the offenders from raping again. These participants believed that the offenders
were capable of raping again and in some instances had heard rumors that their offenders
had raped other women. Furthermore, a couple of participants expressed an obligation to
stop their offenders from banning other women and children, noting that they would have
felt guilty if they did not participate in the prosecutorial process. Similarly, a couple of
participants explained that participating in the prosecutorial process meant they were
standing up for themselves and wanted to serve as a role model to encourage other
victims to stand up for themselves.

Second, some participants with prosecuted cases did not feel like they had a
choice about participating in the prosecutorial process. In some cases, participants stated
that law enforcement told them that they did not have a choice about continuing with
prosecution. That is, once they reported the rape, it was the State’s decision to prosecute
the case and not the victim’s decision. In other cases, the option of continuing with the
prosecutorial process was never discussed by the criminal justice personnel. Thus, the

participants believed that they had to participate regardless of their own desires to

78

participate. For example, one woman was unaware that she could request that the case be
dropped. Another participant described how the investigational process happened so
quickly that she did not have time to consider whether she wanted to participate in the
process.

While positive treatment by detectives seems to prevent some participants from
withdrawing from the investigational process, negative treatment did not necessarily
inﬂuence participants to withdraw. Despite the negative treatment, participants advocated
for their cases to continue by offering suggestions of potential case leads such as other
witnesses to interview, making phone calls to detectives for case updates, and defending
their character with the detectives. While the negative treatment made victims question if
they should continue, the participants did not withdraw because they feared their
offenders would rape them or other women again. In the next example, the participant
(raped by her a long-time friend) explains why she wanted to continue with prosecution

even though the detective was “mean” and mocked her.

4107: [just don’t ever want him [offender] to do it again; that was my
biggest thing. I don’t want him to get away with it again, and he probably
will.

The victims persisted with their cases despite the negative treatment because they wanted
to protect other women and themselves from being raped.

While participants in the non-prosecuted cases did not withdraw from the
investigational process because of the negative treatment, the cases were still dropped by

the legal system. The participants with non-prosecuted cases reported that the detectives

79

created a contentious atmosphere, which prevented them from sharing some information
about their victimizations. Therefore, these cases may have been dropped by the legal
system because they lacked strong statements. Prosecutors make charging decisions
based on whether a judge or jury will ﬁnd the victim and her account of the rape as
credible. A key indicator used by prosecutors in determining credibility is the absence of
gaps or inconsistencies in the victim’s statement. Therefore, prosecutors reject cases
when the victim’s statement contains inconsistencies or gaps (Frohmann, 1997). Many
participants with non-prosecuted cases reported not sharing their entire accounts of the
rape because they felt uncomfortable with the detectives. In addition, the participants
reported their detectives repeatedly requesting them to retell their stories because they did
not have a “clear picture.” Thus, it is likely that their statements contained gaps, which
may have led to the cases being dropped.
Negative Case Analysis

While this theory applied to most of the rape victims interviewed in this study, it
did not completely ﬁt the experience of all participants (see Figure 2). In particular, this
theory did not completely ﬁt the experience of participants with prosecuted cases who
were raped by intimate partners and participants with non-prosecuted cases who were
raped by strangers. Participants with prosecuted cases who were raped by intimate
partners described their detectives as less attentive to their well-being, as illustrated in
this next example. In this example, a 45 year old white female was raped by her African
American husband after he broke her nose. The participant called the police after the
offender went to sleep. The woman drank alcohol approximately seven hours prior to the

rape. The offender was arrested when the responding ofﬁcers arrived on the scene but

80

prior to the detective’s involvement. The case was charged by the prosecutor and handled
by a jury trial. The jury found the offender guilty of aggravated assault but acquitted him
of the rape charge. In this example, the participant disCusses how the detective wanted
her to make a statement and receive a forensic exam before receiving medical care for her

broken nose.

4128: And they did mention you need to go to the hospital and all this, but

the Detectives were just so, about, we need to go get this done, so you

know what I’m sayin it was just like he really wanted to just nail him

[offender] on this CSC [criminal sexual conduct] charge. That was his

[detective] main focus, his main concern. I don ’t see why my nose

couldn ’t have been attended to ﬁrst and then have this done.
As illustrated in this example, the detective was not attentive to the victim’s physical
well-being; the detective’s main priority was investigating the case to secure a
conviction. Despite this lack of attentiveness to the victim’s well-being, the participant
found the detective to be compassionate, protective, and on her side because of the effort
exerted by the detective. A second participant reported that the detectives on her case
were more distant or businesslike compared to other professionals encountered during the
early stages of the legal process. However, these participants did not report their
detectives asking questions in a forceful or rushing manner. Therefore, these participants
expressed feeling comfortable with their detectives but also felt like they cared more
about obtaining a conviction than about the victims’ well—being. Thus, the participants

did not experience a level of discomfort with the detectives that prevented them from

fully sharing their stories.

81

Figure 2

Comparison of Detectives’ Manner of Questioning by Case Outcome and Victim-

 

 

 

 

Offender Relationship
Intimate Partner Acquaintance Stranger
Offenders Offenders Offenders
Prosecuted Cases Gentle & Gentle & Gentle &
compassionate but compassionate compassionate
more focused on
securing a
conviction than on
the victims’ well-
being
Non-Prosecuted Rushing & harsh Rushing & harsh Gentle &
Cases compassionate

 

 

 

initially but becomes
colder as the case
becomes cold

 

Overall, participants with prosecuted cases who were raped by intimate partners

reported interactions with their detectives that were somewhat different than victims with

prosecuted cases who were raped by strangers or acquaintances. That is, participants

raped by intimate partners reported their detectives’ as less attentive to their well-being or

more distant. However, participants with non-prosecuted cases who were raped by

intimate partners did not report their interactions with detectives to be any different than

victims with non-prosecuted cases who were raped by strangers or acquaintances. In

addition, victims of intimate partner rape with non-prosecuted cases reported their

detectives’ manner of questioning to be much harsher than victims of intimate partner

rape with prosecuted cases. This raises the question of why the detectives were less

attentive to victims of intimate partner rape whose cases were prosecuted. These

 

participants believed that the detectives were so strongly focused on “nailing” the
offender that they neglected the victims’ well-being or concerns. The popularity of
mandatory arrest and no-drop policies have placed more pressure on law enforcement to
arrest and obtain convictions on domestic violence cases (Mignon & Holmes, 1995). As
such, it is possible that the detectives handling the intimate partner rapes felt pressure to
obtain convictions, which may have led to focusing all of their attention on building the
case and overlooking the victims’ well-being. In addition, this pressure may have been
especially present in the prosecuted cases because the participants were still in
relationships with the offenders when they were raped, while most of the participants in
the non-prosecuted cases were not. Thus, the detectives may have believed that the
women who were still in violent relationships were more at risk of danger.

This theory also did not completely ﬁt the experience of participants with non-
prosecuted cases who were raped by strangers who were never apprehended. While most
participants in the non-prosecuted cases experienced a lack of compassion and harsher
style of questioning by the detectives, participants who were raped by strangers who were
never apprehended had a different experience. These participants describe their
detectives’ manner of questioning as gentle and compassionate, which was a similar
response to the participants with prosecuted cases who were raped by apprehended
strangers. However, as time passed and the offenders were not apprehended, the
detectives either ceased contact with or became less compassionate towards the victims.
That is, as the case became cold (i.e., no leads), the detectives appeared to become cold

or distant as well.

83

Member Check Results: Victims

The victim informants were asked to describe their experiences with the
detectives. Of the three women who provided member checks, two victims’ cases were
ultimately prosecuted and one was not. Similar to participants in the current study, the
victim informants’ experiences with the detectives were substantially different for cases
that were ultimately prosecuted compared to those that were not. For example, the
informants with prosecuted cases reported that the detectives began the interviews by
encouraging the victims to tell their stories. One of the women stated that the detective
told her to take her time and offered her a break when she started to emotionally “shut
down” during the interview. These women described the detectives as compassionate
and sympathetic throughout the whole interview, which created feelings of comfort and a
sense of safety. The victims stated that the detectives never doubted or blamed them,
which made them more comfortable telling their accounts of the rape. As a result of this
treatment, one woman expressed feeling like she could trust the detective and thus, was
able to describe her rape in detail. The other victim predicted that if the detective had
rushed her or was insensitive that she would have continued to “shut down” and be
unable to share her account of the rape. In both of those cases, there were factors about
the rape or case that prior research has shown to be associated with cases being
prosecuted including weapon use, immediately reporting the rape, and early arrest.

By comparison, the third informant was raped by an acquaintance at a party and
the case was not prosecuted because the prosecutor could not “prove” that the rape was
forced. This woman reported that the interview began with the detective asking a long

series of questions but felt like she was not given the opportunity to tell her complete

84

story. That is, the detective frequently interrupted her when she was answering the
questions. The detective questioned why she did not scream when there were other
people in the home. In addition, the woman was on anti-depressants and her depression
became part of the questioning. The woman felt like the detective was trying to paint her
as a “troubled woman who wants attention.” The woman felt judged by the detective and
decided not to share information about a prior incident that involved consensual kissing
with the offender. However, the offender mentioned this during his interview, which may
have led the prosecutor to dropping the case. That is, the prosecutor may have viewed the
victim as lacking credibility because of this omission. In this case, there were factors
about the rape or case that prior research has shown to be associated with cases being
dropped including drinking, delayed reporting (three days), and absence of an early
arrest.

After these open, unstructured discussions about their experiences with their
detectives, the victim informants were told about the theory developed from the study and
requested feedback. The informants felt like their stories paralleled the theory and
believed that the theory made sense. Furthermore, the woman whose case was not
prosecuted had later joined a support group for rape victims. After hearing other victims’
experiences, she wondered if she would have been treated better if she had an advocate
present during the interview. However, she had little hope that the ultimate outcome of
her case would have changed even with an advocate.

Member Check Results: Advocates
The advocate informants were asked to think about a recent case and describe

their client’s experiences with the detective. Similar to participants in the current study,

85

the advocate informants reported victims experiences with the detectives as primarily
different for cases that were ultimately prosecuted compared to those that were not with
one exception that will be discussed later. Only one advocate discussed a case that was
prosecuted. Similar to the ﬁndings of the study, the advocate described the detective
beginning the interview by saying “I know this is hard for you but could you tell me what
happened.” The advocate described the detective’s manner of questioning as gentle and
not “pushy or forceful.” She described the detective as compassionate, listening
attentively, and not demeaning. She also said that the detective was sitting and leaning
towards the victim, which led the advocate to believing the detective was engaged during
the interview. Finally, the advocate described the content of the detective’s questions as
factual and not blaming. The victim had later told the advocate that she felt comfortable
with the detective.

On the other hand, the other advocates described non-prosecuted cases that were
primarily similar to the ﬁndings of this study. The advocates described the detectives
rushing the victims by asking questions in quick succession. In addition, one advocate
reported that the detective interrupted the victim every time she answered a question to
express his doubt of her answer. For example, the victim began to explain how she was
raped and the detective interj ected by asking “why didn’t you leave?” The advocates also
described the detectives’ manner of questioning as harsh and abusive. They reported that
the detectives were accusatory, shaming, and blaming from the very beginning of the
interviews. Further, one advocate noted that the victim became visibly upset during the
interview and the detective responded by demanding that she calm down and questioned

why she was so upset. The advocates described the detectives as intimidating and one

86

victim told the advocate that she was afraid of the detective and did not want to be alone
with him. The advocates further noted that the detectives communicated disbelief of the
victims’ stories and in one case accused the victim of lying and threatened to charge her
with false reporting. A couple of the advocates noted that as a result of the detectives’
manner of questioning, the victims did not tell parts of their story that embarrassed them.
For example, one victim was embarrassed to tell the detective that she had engaged in
some consensual sexual activity with the offender prior to the rape. In addition, another
advocate noted that the victim had attempted to disclose her full story but the detective
interrupted her frequently, which led the advocate to believe that the detective lacked a
clear understanding of what occurred before, during, and after the rape.

While most of the advocates reported their clients’ stories as similar to the major
ﬁndings of this study, one advocate described a victim’s story that did not completely
parallel the ﬁndings. The advocate described a case that was not prosecuted but the
detective was compassionate and never showed disbelief of the victim during the
interview. Subsequently, the detective called the advocate to inform her that the
prosecutor was dropping the case due to lack of evidence. The detective stated that he
believed the victim and wanted the case to be prosecuted but could not convince the
prosecutor to do so. The detective was worried that the news of the case being dropped
would “crush” the victim and consulted with the advocate on the best plan to inform her.
This case is different from the major ﬁndings of this study in that a victim whose case
was not prosecuted was treated with compassion by a detective who wanted the case to
be prosecuted. Therefore, one condition that this study did not capture was detectives

who want the cases to be prosecuted but for a variety of reasons the prosecutor does not

87

warrant the case. Based on this case, it would be important for future research to examine
how victims are treated in the context of what detectives and prosecutors want to happen
to the cases.

The second component of the member check was providing an overview of the
theory to the advocate informants to obtain their feedback. The advocates noted that the
theory was understandable and reﬂected most of the experiences of their clientele. They
could not recall any cases that resulted in prosecution when the detectives questioned the
victims in a harsh manner. However, the advocates were present for some interviews in
which the victims were questioned in a compassionate manner but the cases were not
prosecuted. One advocate further elaborated that while the interviews in these cases went
well, she had a “gut feeling” that the cases would be dropped because the detectives
seemed neutral. When probed further, the advocate described the neutrality as a subtle
apathy in their body language (e. g., minimal eye contact, no handshaking) and that there
was an absence of compassion by the detective. While the detective did not question
these victims in a harsh manner, they also were not displaying compassion either and in
the advocate’s experience these cases were not ultimately prosecuted.

On the other hand, the advocates reported that there have been times when the
detectives refused to allow the advocates to be present during the interviews, which the
victims later described their detectives as harsh or cold. Therefore, the advocates
predicted that their presence during the interviews may have inﬂuenced the detectives’
interview style because they primarily have witnessed detectives using a compassionate
or neutral manner of questioning. Yet, many of their clientele have reported harsh

questioning by detectives in the absence of the advocates. It is important to note that none

88

of the victims in the current study had advocates present during their interviews with the
detectives to make comparisons. However, based on the advocates’ feedback, it seems
important for future research to explore the role that advocacy plays in how detectives

question rape victims and the subsequent case outcome.

89

DISCUSSION

Successful prosecution of rape cases rests strongly on the information provided by
victims during the law enforcement investigation because this crime typically has no
witnesses (Bouffard, 2000; Konradi, 2008; Martin, 2005). Cases are more likely to move
forward through the legal system when a complete account of the crime has been
documented (Martin, 2005). As such, the communication between the victim and
detective during the investigational stage is vital to building a strong case, and perhaps
ultimately, its prosecutorial outcome. However, the complexity of these interactions has
not been examined. There may be variability in how detectives ask questions, which may
affect victims positively or negatively, and subsequently inﬂuence the quality of
information given by the victims. The overarching goal of the current study was to build
a theory that explains how the interactions between the victim and detective affect the
quality of the investigation itself. Overall, the theory found that detectives determine if
the victim is credible prior to interviewing the victim, which inﬂuences whether they
question the victim in a compassionate gentle manner or a harsh forceful manner and
subsequently leads to the victim providing an increased or decreased amount of

information about her victimization (see ﬁgure 3).

90

 

Figure 3
An Emerging Theory of Detectives’ Inﬂuence on Victim Engagement

Detective Detective Victim feels Victim Case is
assesses —) questions —> more —) shares an —> more
victim as victim in a comfortable increased likely to
having compassionate with amount of be
higher gentle manner detective information, prosecuted
credibility producing a
more
complete
account of
the rape
Detective Detective Victim feels Victim shares Case is less
assesses —) questions —> less —) a decreased —) likely to be
victim as victim in a comfortable amount of prosecuted
having harsh with information,
lower forceful detective producing a
credibility manner more
incomplete
account of
the rape

Summary of Major Findings

Case antecedents. The ﬁrst goal of this study was to identify victim and case
characteristics that may affect the investigation process and ultimately the case outcomes.
Prior literature suggests that the legal system only prosecutes those cases that law
enforcement and prosecutors consider credible, which is often determined by the victim
and case characteristics. With respect to victim characteristics, younger victims were
somewhat less likely to have their cases eventually prosecuted. Previous research has
found that younger victims are less likely to have their cases prosecuted by legal system

personnel because criminal justice system personnel often believe that younger victims

91

are likely to fabricate or instigate the rape (Rose & Randall, 1982; Spear & Spohn, 1996,
1997)

Race of the victim is another factor that affects whether a case may be prosecuted.
In the current study, none of the victims whose cases were ultimately prosecuted were
racial/ethnic minorities. Previous research has documented that rape cases are more likely
to be prosecuted if the victim is white and prosecuted less often when the victim belongs
to a racial minority group (Campbell et al., 2001; Spears et al., 2001 ). Additionally, many
studies suggest that racial composition of both the victim and offender inﬂuence case
processing (Frohmann, 1997; Spears et a1, 2001). In examining the victim/offender racial
dyad in the current study, prosecuted cases had a much higher percentage of white
victims raped by minority offenders than non-prosecuted cases. Similarly, prosecuted
cases had a slightly lower percentage of white victims raped by white offenders than non-
prosecuted cases. However, none of the cases involving minority victims were prosecuted
regardless of the offenders’ race. Likewise, prior studies also show that cases involving
African-American offenders assaulting white victims were more likely to be prosecuted
(Frohmann, 1997; Spears et al, 2001).

Prior studies examining the role of the victim-offender relationship in rape case
processing have shown mixed results, with more recent studies showing that the victim-
offender relationship had no effect on legal outcomes of rape cases (Bachman, 1998;
Spohn & Homey, 1993; Spears & Spohn, 1996, 1997). This study also did not ﬁnd an
association between victim-offender relationship and case outcome. Although victims

raped by intimate partners may be processed somewhat differently than victims raped by

92

strangers or acquaintances, there was no difference in ultimate case outcomes for intimate
partner sexual assaults.

Another important element that inﬂuences whether rape cases are prosecuted is
presence or absence of injuries on the victims’ bodies. Prior research suggests that cases
are more likely to be prosecuted if the victim endures injuries from the assault (Frazier &
Haney, 1996; Martin & Powell, 1995; Spohn & Spears, 1997; Spohn, Beichner, & Davis-
Frenzal, 2001). Similar to the extant literature, the current study found that a slightly
higher percentage of prosecuted cases involved victims with physical and anogenital
injuries than non-prosecuted cases.

Victims who report immediately following the rape are often viewed as credible
by legal system personnel, and thus are more likely to have their cases prosecuted. Cases
that were prosecuted had a substantially higher percentage of victims who reported within
two hours following the assault compared to non-prosecuted cases. This ﬁnding coincides
with previous research that suggests a delay in reporting may be viewed as less credible,
and thus less likely to be prosecuted (F rohmann, 1997; Kerstetter, 1990).

Alcohol and drug use by the victim has been shown to be an important factor that
inﬂuences system personnel dropping rape cases (Campbell, 1998; Spears & Spohn,
1996; Frohmann, 1997). That is, legal system personnel view victims who consume
alcohol or drugs prior to their rape as less credible than those who did not. However, in
the current study, prosecuted cases had a higher percentage of victims who consumed
alcohol or drugs than non-prosecuted cases, which seems incongruent with the prior
research. Yet, a more in—depth examination of the prosecuted cases showed that most

victims consumed alcohol three to seven hours prior to their rape. Thus, it may be

93

possible that alcohol consumption had less weight as an indicator of credibility or other
indices held more weight in the decisions of legal system personnel. For example, one
case was prosecuted that involved a victim who was drinking at a bar prior to her rape.
However, the offender was an African-American male with a criminal record and was
arrested prior to the detective’s involvement in the case. In addition, the offender
confessed to the crime. All of these factors (race of offender, criminal record, early arrest,
and confession) most likely inﬂuenced the case to be prosecuted.

In addition to victim credibility, prior research suggests that detectives are more
likely to forward cases when the offender is already in custody because it requires less
investigational effort (e. g., paperwork to obtain arrest warrant, search for the offender)
(Kerstetter & Van Winkle 1990). This study replicated that ﬁnding as the prosecuted
cases in the current study had a substantially higher percentage of offenders arrested on
the same day as the report compared to non-prosecuted cases. Overall, the ﬁndings of the
current study parallel prior studies that suggest that the legal system makes rape case
processing decisions based on victim credibility and degree of investigational effort
required.

An Emerging Theory of Detectives ’ Inﬂuence on Victim Engagement

An overarching goal of this research is to build a theory that explains how the
interactions between the victim and detective affect the quality of the investigation itself.
Detectives often review the responding ofﬁcers’ reports prior to interviewing the victim,
perhaps to assess the credibility of the victim and the case. This assessment may
inﬂuence the interview style utilized by detectives for individual cases. That is, if a

detective deems a victim or case as having high credibility and/or the case requiring less

94

investigational effort, then the detective approaches the interview differently because the
aim becomes building the case further. In order to build a strong case, detailed
information is needed from the victim, which requires the detective to create an
environment that is safe and comfortable to maximize the level of detail needed from the
victim. A safe interview environment is created through a combination of several
different mechanisms.

First, the detective builds rapport with the victim prior to conducting the
interview, which increases the victim’s feelings of comfort prior to providing an account
of the rape. Second, the detective begins the interview by having the victim provide a full
account of the rape with the detective encouraging the victim to disclose. After the victim
describes the entire rape, the detective asks follow-up questions in a gentle manner at a
conversational pace. Third, the detective displays compassion towards the victim by
being friendly, supportive, respective, and sensitive throughout this process. In addition,
the detective listens to the victim’s story and concerns intently. Finally, the detective does
not express doubt of the victim’s account or blame the victim for causing the rape.
Instead, the detective verbalizes being on the “victim’s side,” and may mock the suspect
or share information about the suspect (e. g., criminal history). Through this manner of
questioning, the detective creates a calm and less formidable interview environment,
which helps the victim feel comfortable with the detective and interview process, and
regards the detective as trustworthy and safe. The detective becomes viewed as an ally
because the victim feels understood, cared about, and believed by the detective.
Consequently, the detective is able to elicit more information from the victim, producing

a more complete account of the rape, and subsequently a stronger case for prosecution.

95

Therefore, the case has a better chance of being prosecuted. While this theory ﬁt the
majority of rape victims with prosecuted cases, it did not apply to victims of intimate
partner rape who were not treated with less compassion by their detectives.

While the effect of investigational interviews on the quality of rape victim
statements is an understudied area, prior studies may offer some insight into why this
comfortable interview environment will yield a stronger statement. The literature
suggests that the majority of information elicited from an interview occurs in the opening
narration if the victim remains uninterrupted (Fisher, 1995). Thus, the detectives most
likely obtained more information by allowing victims to tell the entire account of the rape
at their own pace in the beginning of the interview. Previous research has also found that
victims experience many overwhelming feelings following a rape including fear, shame,
humiliation, and powerlessness (Bletzer & Koss , 2006; Herman, 1992). As such, the
detective attending to victim’s emotional well-being (e. g., slowing pace, offering breaks)
may help her endure the intense emotionality experienced during the interview so she can
continue providing information about the rape.

Prior studies have also found that many victims feel unsafe and vulnerable after
rape and anticipate further harm by law enforcement such as being blamed or not
believed (Herman, 1992; Patterson, Greeson, & Campbell, 2008). Therefore, a detective
displaying compassion and expressing belief in the victim’s story could put her at ease
and help her feel comfortable enough to disclose sensitive details about the rape. As such,
the detective has constructed an interview environment conducive to the rape victim
disclosing. Furthermore, building rapport during interviews has been shown to increase

the amount of information elicited by interviewees. Collins, Lincoln, and Frank (2002)

96

examined the effect of rapport on eyewitnesses who observed and then recalled a
videotaped simulated crime. Collins and colleagues randomly assigned participants into
three interviewer-attitude groups: a) the rapport group where the trained interviewer
spoke with a gentler tone, referred to the participant by name, had a relaxed body posture,
and was friendly; b) the abrupt group which consisted of a trained interviewer who used a
harsher tone, did not refer to the participant by name, had a stiff body posture, and
remained uninterested in anything but conducting the interview; and c) the neutral group
whereby the interviewer used a neutral tone and body posture. The study found that
participants in the rapport group provided more correct information without a
corresponding increase in incorrect information. The authors further noted that the
participants in the rapport group stayed with the interviewer longer, and more thoroughly
searched their memories for correct information. These participants stated that the
interviewers’ ﬁiendly and supportive attitude made them try harder in the interview and
in recalling additional details.

Conversely, if the detective regards the victim as having low credibility and/or the
case requiring more investigational effort, then the detective creates an interview
environment that feels uncomfortable for the victim. An uncomfortable interview
environment is developed through a variety of different methods. First, the detective does
not begin the interview by building rapport but instead asks a long succession of
questions in a forceful and “drilling” manner at a rapid pace. Second, the detective
engages in secondary victimization behaviors such as blaming the victim for causing the
rape or asking how she responded to the rape or offender. In addition, the detective may

have a detached demeanor or lack compassion (e. g., never inquire about how the victim

97

is coping). Third, the detective verbalizes doubt of the victim’s account, suggests the
victim “back out” if lying, or threatens her with criminal charges. The detective may also
express belief in the offender’s story and request the victim to recount the rape
repeatedly. As a result of this questioning style, the detective has created an intimidating
interview environment, which leads to the victim feeling uncomfortable with the
detective and interview process. The victim may feel victimized and treated as a criminal,
leading her to feel afraid of being charged with false reporting. Accordingly, the detective
is unable to elicit as much information from the victim, producing an incomplete account
of the rape, and subsequently a weaker case for prosecution. Therefore, the case has a
lower chance of being prosecuted. This theory ﬁt most victims with non-prosecuted cases
except victims raped by strangers, who were treated primarily with compassion by their
detectives.

Prior research on the legal system’s response to rape may also shed some light on
why this harsh type of interview style may prevent the victim from sharing information.
Rape often involves the offender using threat of or actual use of force to commit
penetration (Giardino, Datner & Asher, 2003). Additionally, rape profoundly disrupts the
victim’s sense of trust and safety, which leaves the victim on high alert of potential
threats to her physical or psychological well-being (Herman, 1992). Furthermore, a
victim will attempt to avoid reminders of the rape or the offender for a long period of
time following the rape (Herman, 1992). Therefore, a detective who questions a victim in
a forceful blaming manner is likely to resemble the offender, creating an uncomfortable
and intimidating interview environment. When a victim experiences or anticipates

negative responses by law enforcement, the victim may engage in self-protective

98

behavior by withholding details of her rape, especially if she anticipates the details will
elicit judgmental or hurtful responses from law enforcement.

Prior research has also found that using a harsh or neutral tone decreases the
amount of information elicited during an investigational interview. As described earlier,
Collins, Lincoln, and Frank (2002) examined the effect of rapport (or lack of) on
eyewitness who observed and then recalled a videotaped simulated crime. The
participants in the abrupt (i.e., harsh) and neutral groups were reluctant to provide
information because of the interviewers’ attitudes. This study suggested that an overly
aggressive, controlling interviewer could decrease the amount of information shared by a
cooperative witness. Furthermore, an interviewer who exhibits disinterest during the
interview could be viewed as having a negative attitude, which subsequently affects
information shared by the participant. This suggests that the interviewer’s attitude plays
an important role in the quality and quantity of information provided by a victim of a
crime. Similarly, the current study found that some detectives created an intimidating and
adversarial interview setting, which impeded the victims from sharing information about
the rape and thus created gaps in the victim statements.

While the current study focuses on the interactions between victims and
detectives during the law enforcement investigation, a prior study showed similar results
when examining the later stages of the criminal justice system. In fact, the ﬁndings
regarding victim-prosecutor interactions were so similar to the victim-detective
interactions of the current study that it merits a more in-depth discussion. In an
ethnographic ﬁeld study of seven prosecutors handling 71 cases, Frohmann (1998) found

that if prosecutors are going to reject a case, they produce uncertainty in victims about

99

going forward with prosecution by showing how potentially difﬁcult and humiliating a
trial can be. In addition, the prosecutors’ express concern about the victims’ safety from
the offenders’ friends or family but do not offer legal remedy to increase their safety. On
the other hand, prosecutors create relationships of trust when they are going to charge
cases. Additionally, prosecutors offer either legal remedies to increase victim safety or do
not verbalize their concerns about the victims’ psychological well-being or physical
safety when encouraging prosecution.

Similar to the current study, F rohmann found that prosecutors approached the
cases that were ultimately prosecuted differently than the cases that were not prosecuted.
Through interviews and ﬁeld observations, Frohmann was also able to determine that the
charging decisions were based on factors of credibility, which then inﬂuenced their
approach with victims. That is, the prosecutors would charge cases when they believed
the victims or cases were credible. Further, the decision to charge the cases then led the
prosecutors to building relationships of trust with the victims, which helped the cases
continue (i.e., victims remained engaged in the prosecutorial process). On the other hand,
prosecutors would drop cases when they believed the victims or cases lacked credibility,
which inﬂuenced their approach with these victims. Instead of using a harsh approach
like the detectives did in the current study, the prosecutors expressed concern for the
victims’ safety (e. g., friends of the offender seeking revenge) but never offered legal
protection to keep the victims safe. Further, they warned the victims that a trial could be
potentially difﬁcult and humiliating. For example, the prosecutors would suggest that the
jurors may not believe the victim or that the defense attorney will ask humiliating

questions during the trial. The prosecutors’ goal of expressing these concerns was to

100

convince the victims to withdraw their participation, which would prevent the prosecutors
from having to tell the victims about their decisions to drop the cases. It is possible that
prosecutors approach victims with “concern” rather than harshness because the chief
prosecuting attorney (also referred to as the district attorney in some jurisdictions) is an
elected position. Therefore, prosecutors placing the blame on defense attorneys (e. g.,
being crossed examined is humiliating) or jurors (e. g., they probably will not convict the
offender because you were drinking) allows the victim to view the prosecutors in a
positive light because they were showing their “concern”. Overall, the Frohmann and
current study suggest that law enforcement and prosecutors formulate their decisions very
early in the process, which dictates how they interact with victims and subsequently
creates stronger or weaker cases.
Implication of Findings: Practice

The results from this study indicate that the detectives’ manner of questioning can
lead to decreased opportunities of justice for some victims, and there are other potential
implications for harsh questioning. Prior research has shown that victims who receive
negative reactions from legal system personnel are reluctant to seek further help for
medical and mental health services, which could have long-term negative effects on
victims’ psychological and physical health well-being. (Campbell, 2005; Logan et al.,
2005). In addition, it is probable that the harsh treatment some victims endure prevents
other women from reporting to the legal system. For example, Patterson, Greeson, and
Campbell (2008) found that one primary reason that victims do not report to the police is
because they were worried that law enforcement would cause further harm (e.g., victim

blaming) and emotional distress. This suggests that law enforcement have gained a

101

reputation as being harmful to rape victims, which could deter victims from reporting the
crime.

Based on the ﬁndings, three intervention/prevention approaches are
recommended: victim advocacy, law enforcement training, and a community coordinated
response. First, the advocate informants suggested that victims were treated better when
they were present during the interviews. Even when the cases were not prosecuted, the
detectives at least had a neutral interview style when the advocates were present, which
may be less hurtful than a harsh interviewing style. Similarly, prior research has found
that advocacy decreases negative law enforcement’s treatment towards rape victims. In a
naturalistic, quasi-experimental design, Campbell (2006) found that the majority of
victims felt violated and disappointed after their contact with law enforcement regardless
of having an advocate present, but those victims with an advocate were less likely to be
asked by law enforcement about their prior sexual history or if they responded sexually to
the assault. The current study also shows that advocacy may be particularly important for
victims of intimate partner rape, as none of these victims had a completely positive
experience with detectives. This is particularly disconcerting because offenders of
intimate partner violence are likely to revictimize their partners in the future but these
victims are less likely to seek help again if they had a negative experience with law
enforcement (Kingsnorth, 2006; Stephens & Sinden, 2000). Given the pressure that law
enforcement may experience as a result of state policies (e. g., mandatory arrest, no-drop
policies), it may be helpful for the victim to have a victim advocate to ensure that the

victims’ voices are heard and receive a humane response.

102

In addition, none of the cases involving racial/ethnic minority victims were
prosecuted, and detectives used a harsh manner of questioning with most of them. This
ﬁnding is similar to prior research that showed racial/ethnic minority were less likely to
have their cases prosecuted (Campbell et al., 2001; Spears et al., 2001). Rape crisis center
advocacy services may buffer such treatment, but many victims, particularly
racial/ethnic minority women, may not know about rape crisis centers and how they can
be of help immediately post-assault (Campbell et al., 2001). Rape crisis centers should
consider focusing more of their organizational attention toward increasing public
awareness of their advocacy services, particularly in communities of color. In addition to
increasing public awareness, rape crisis centers need to collaborate with law enforcement
agencies to offer legal advocacy in a more systematic way. Some law enforcement
departments or individual ofﬁcers may refuse to have advocates present during the
interview. All states have laws on rights and protections of crime victims but do not
always include the right to have victim advocates present during all stages of the
prosecutorial process (National Center for Victims of Crime, 2008). Because the ﬁndings
of the current show that advocacy presence increases humane treatment of victims, state
policies should consider adopting the right to victim advocacy during all stages of the
investigational and prosecutorial process.

Second, law enforcement ofﬁcers receive minimal training on investigating rape
or how to respond to rape victims (Lonsway, 2001). Given the complex and sensitive
nature of the crime and the unique needs of rape victims, improving training for law
enforcement is a priority. Lonsway (2001) examined the effectiveness of a specialized

four-hour training program designed to improve the behavioral response of police

103

academy recruits with rape victims through multiple teaching modalities (e. g. case
studies, role playing). Two classes of recruits were randomly assigned to receive the
experimental training and another class was assigned the typical training protocol
(baseline curriculum), which focused on general dynamics of sexual assault crimes within
a thirty minute lecture. The recruits in the experimental training condition were more
likely to use a number of speciﬁc techniques recommended in the training for a sensitive
response. Speciﬁcally, the study found that the recruits who received the specialized
training were more likely to allow the victim signiﬁcant control over the pace and tone of
the interview. In addition, the recruits with specialized training were more likely to
address a range of needs and concerns of the victim as well as provide empathy and
reassurance to the victim. In a follow-up study, Lonsway (2001) assessed outcomes of the
training over different points in time with 450 recruits including: a) before the
experimental program; b) after classroom instruction but before a simulated interview, c)
after class instruction and a simulated interview; and d) after completion of a second
simulated interview. The results indicated that the interview performance was superior
among those recruits who participated in two simulated interviews, rather than only one.

Building upon Lonsway’s research, the current ﬁndings suggest that the training
should speciﬁcally include instructing law enforcement about the compassionate and
harsh interview styles and its impact on victims. This is especially true because prior
research has shown that law enforcement signiﬁcantly underestimates the impact their
behavior has on victims (Campbell, 2005). In addition, law enforcement typically has
high case loads with fewer resources. Thus, they may be reluctant to adopt the

compassionate interview style if they believe that this approach will exhaust more

104

resources. Prior research has shown that treating victims harshly waste less time and
energy on a case (Martin, 2005). Therefore, it is important to address this concern during
the training intervention. Furthermore, Lonsway (2001) posits that the use of behavioral
simulations during police trainings can signiﬁcantly improve law enforcement’s response
to rape victims. Practicing new skills is particularly important because prior research has
indicated that less than 30% of what people learn in training actually gets used on the job
(Robinson & Robinson, 1995). Behavioral simulation is one way to ensure that new
knowledge and skills transfer to the job. In the current study, detectives were more likely
to utilize a harsh interview style with cases that are typically viewed as having low
credibility. To increase the chances that all victims receive a compassionate style of
questioning, it is important that detective supervisors endorse this interview style
(Goldstein & Ford, 2002).

Third, studies have found that systemically-focused initiatives help improve law
enforcement’s treatment towards rape victims. These initiatives often involve
multidisciplinary bodies (e. g., advocates, health care providers) that collaborate with one
another to meet the needs of victims and hold offenders accountable (Littel, 2001).
Campbell (1998) interviewed victim advocates to inquire about the beneﬁts of
community coordinated services among rape case processing agencies (e.g., law
enforcement, rape crisis centers). The study found that victims who lived in communities
with more coordinated services among agencies had more positive experiences with the
legal system than victims in low coordination communities. In a qualitative follow-up
study, Campbell and Ahrens (1998) compared 22 high coordinated communities with 12

low coordination communities to examine how coordinated agencies are helpful to rape

105

victims. Results indicated that communities with higher coordination were more
successful in providing higher quality care consistent with victims’ needs. In a more
recent study, Zweig and Burt (2006) conducted telephone interviews with 1,509 victims
from 26 communities with different levels of collaborative engagement among agencies.
This study suggests rape cases from high coordinated communities were more likely to
result in an arrest of the offender and victims were more likely to report the response of
law enforcement to be effective. These studies suggest that community coordination
among rape case processing agencies improve law enforcement’s treatment of rape
victims.

Drawing upon this literature, the ﬁndings of the current study would suggest that
the success of detectives adopting a compassionate interview style with all victims needs
to be a systemically-focused initiative. That is, all rape case processing agencies would
need to receive informational training on understanding how law enforcement’s interview
style affects victims and the quality of their statements. For example, prosecutors
typically believe that victims’ statements with gaps are due to the lack of credibility of
victims and not related to the detectives’ interview skills or style (Martin, 2005).
Therefore, making prosecutor aware of the linkage between detective interview styles and
the quality of the victim statements could have several advantages. For example,
prosecutors often make charging decisions based on the victims’ statements obtained
through the investigational interviews (Martin, 2005). If prosecutors understand the
impact detectives have on victim statements, they may be more willing to meet with
victims prior to making their decisions rather than automatically dropping the cases. In

addition, the elected prosecutor often sets county-level policies and protocols for rape

106

case processing and as such, could set expectations for how detectives interview victims.
Setting expectations has been shown to help people apply new knowledge and skills into
their job setting (Goldstein & Ford, 2002). Furthermore, prosecutors review many
detectives’ investigational reports including the victim statement, which provides a
natural monitoring system of detectives and law enforcement agencies. Thus, prosecutors
can identify patterns of frequently weak statements by individual detectives or law
enforcement agencies and recommend further training or address barriers to
systematically utilizing the compassionate interview style.

Victim advocates and medical personnel such as sexual assault nurse examiners
(SANEs) are also key stakeholders involved in the systemically-focused post—assault
response to victims. Victim advocates and SANEs may be present during the
investigational interview or may provide consultation to the detectives. Therefore, it is
also important that they have knowledge of the association between detective interview
styles and the quality of the victim statements. Prior studies show that a relapse of using
new knowledge and skills is less likely if other colleagues and professionals expect and
support the trainees to adopt them in their work (Goldstein & Ford, 2002). Therefore,
victim advocates and SANEs may offer encouragement in the use of the compassionate
interview style, especially with cases that are typically viewed as having low credibility.
Implication of Findings: Future Research

This study can serve as a catalyst for several research projects. First, it appears
that detectives may have predetermined notions about rape cases prior to interviewing
victims, and therefore, further research is needed to examine when detectives form their

beliefs about the cases. For example, do detectives determine victim believability and

107

credibility prior to conducting an interview with the victim? How do detectives determine
the victims’ believability or credibility prior to the interview? An ethnographic ﬁeld
study would be beneﬁcial to address these questions because it could capture when
detectives form their initial beliefs about the case, and if and how those perceptions
change as the case progresses. As discussed earlier, a similar ethnographic study was
conducted by F rohmann (1998) regarding prosecutors’ decision making and approach
with rape victims. The current study highlights the need for a similar study focusing on
the stage of law enforcement investigation.

Second, the current study suggests that preconceived beliefs may affect the
detective’s manner of questioning, which may subsequently inﬂuence the quality of the
victim statement. A larger quantitative observational study is needed to examine a) more
in-depth interactions that occur between victims and detectives and b) how the victim and
detectives’ pre-interview notions may affect these interactions. Video-taped interactions
of detectives and victims would allow for a through examination of the investigational
interview process. What do detectives ask during the interviews (content) and how do
they ask it (delivery)? Moreover, how do victims respond during the interviews?
Observational research would be beneﬁcial to answer these questions because it measures
behavior without relying on participants’ memory or self awareness of their behavior.
However, observational research does not help understand what is happening within a
person (e. g., emotions or beliefs). Therefore, interviews with detectives, victims, and
prosecutors could supplement the observational data by providing insight into their
perceptions. Interviewing detectives would help determine if they had any pre-

determined notions about the victim or case prior to their interviews with the victims.

108

Including interviews with victims in this study could determine if the victims provided a
complete statement of their rape during the interview with their detectives. In addition,
interviews with prosecutors could examine whether the victims’ statements affected their
decisions to prosecute or drop the cases.

This study also has an implication for future research examining victims’
experiences with law enforcement. Many prior studies have examined rape victims’
experiences with the legal system by comparing those raped by strangers to those raped
by non-strangers, which combined the experiences of victims raped by intimate partners
with those raped by acquaintances. However, this study found that women who are raped
by their intimate partners have primarin negative experiences with law enforcement
regardless of whether their cases are prosecuted or not. Therefore, it is important that
future research compares the experiences of women who are raped by their intimate
partners to women raped by acquaintances and strangers to further understand the unique
experiences of victims of intimate partner rape.

Limitations of this Study

Several methodological limitations of this study may mitigate the strength of the
conclusions that can be drawn from this work. The data that informed the development of
the theory were from the victims’ perspective, which is appropriate given the intent of the
theory, but does not include data from other stakeholders. Therefore, it may not provide a
complete picture of what happened during the interactions with the detectives. It is
possible that detectives would have a different description of the interview. However,
Campbell (2005) found high interrater reliability between the accounts of victims and law

enforcement regarding how victims were treated. That is, if a victim stated that a law

109

enforcement ofﬁcer had exhibited a particular behavior, most likely that law enforcement
ofﬁcer also reported that they engaged in that behavior. Nonetheless, without the
perspective of both the victim and the detective, the exact nature of the interaction cannot
be determined.

The data also did not include demographical information (e. g. age, race) of the
detectives handling the participants’ cases. Therefore, this study cannot examine if the
detectives’ characteristics inﬂuenced the interactions between the victims and detectives.
For example, it may be possible that victims felt more comfortable with younger
detectives. In addition, this study did not follow a particular set of detectives to determine
if detectives approach all victims consistently (e. g., a detective always questioning
victims in a compassionate manner) or if their manner of questioning was always
inﬂuenced by the victims’ credibility. However, Frohmann (1998) followed a set of
prosecutors to examine their interactions with victims and found that prosecutors did not
treat victims consistently but instead approached victims according to their decisions of
whether to prosecute the cases. Furthermore, it is likely that detectives are randomly
assigned to cases. Therefore, if detectives questioned victims in a consistent manner, it
would be likely that at least some victims with prosecuted cases would experience a harsh
forceful manner of questioning while some victims with non-prosecuted cases would
experience a compassionate gentle manner of questioning.

Individual differences in self-disclosure of participants may have also affected the
quality of the descriptions that were obtained, as victims ranged in the amount of detail
provided during the interviews. Thus, important information may have been omitted.

Therefore, the experiences of more articulate victims may have disproportionately

110

inﬂuenced the conclusions about the effect of the detectives’ manner of questioning on
victim engagement. However, this limitation was mitigated by the ﬁndings of the victim
and advocate member checks, which paralleled the conclusions. In addition, the
interviewers were trained on strategies for building rapport and increasing the victims’
comfort during the interviews, as well as probing to elicit more information. These
strategies were implemented during the interviews and discussed regularly as interview
transcripts were reviewed by the research team. Further, the victims in the current study
reported feeling comfortable during the qualitative interviews, which may have helped
victims provide more information about their interactions with detectives.

The rape survivors who were included in this study are a select group—those who
were willing to participate in research—and may not be representative of all victims who
report to the criminal justice system. Although this study actively recruited a diverse
sample of rape victims who were representative of the focal county, the choice to
participate in this study was ultimately the victims. Those individuals who agree to
participate in research may be different from the general population of rape victims. That
is, the interactions with detectives and its inﬂuence on victims who participated may be
different from those who did not. It may be possible that victims who self-selected into
this study were extremely satisﬁed or dissatisﬁed with their experiences with the
detectives. However, the advocate informants relayed that the detectives often treat
victims in these extremes (e. g., very compassionate or very harsh) with the exception of
some cases. In those cases, the detectives appear neutral towards the victims when

advocates are present. Therefore, the interactions with detectives who have a neutral

111

manner of questioning and its inﬂuence on victims may be different from the victims who
participated in this study.

Furthermore, the ﬁndings of this study can only be generalized to rape cases that
involve victims who received a forensic exam and reported within a few days of the rape.
The interactions between detectives and victims and its subsequent inﬂuence on victim
engagement may be different for those cases in which a victim did not seek medical
assistance, or cases in which the victim reported much later. Prior research suggests that
law enforcement views victims as lacking credibility if they who do not seek medical and
legal assistance immediately following a rape (F rohmann, 1997; Kerstetter, 1990). Thus,
it is probable that these victims would experience harsh treatment similar to or worse than
the victims with non-prosecuted cases in this study, and thus would negatively affect their
engagement with the investigation.

Finally, the qualitative nature of this project limits the conclusions that can be
drawn about causality and the extent to which these ﬁndings can be generalized to the
larger population of rape victims. As an exploratory study in an understudied area, the
overarching goal of this project was to build a theory to explain how the interactions
between the victim and detective affect the quality of the investigation itself. While the
rape victims in the current sample described the detectives’ manner of questioning
inﬂuencing the information shared, we cannot deﬁnitively conclude that the interview
style strengthened or weakened the victim statements. It is entirely possible that other
factors (e. g., post-rape distress) interacted with the detectives’ manner of questioning to
inﬂuence their level of disclosures with the detectives. In addition, it may be possible that

victims with non-prosecuted cases would have opted to stop sharing information even if

112

they didn’t experience a harsh manner of questioning. Conversely, it is possible that
victims with prosecuted cases would have shared information with the detectives even if
they did not receive a gentle manner of questioning.

However, it may be difﬁcult to design an “ideal” study that can adequately
address these limitations. For example, randomly assigning detectives’ interviewing
styles (e. g., compassionate, harsh) to recently victimized rape victims has ethical
implications. Thus, one way to further examine detective interview styles is through an
experimental evaluation of a training program designed to improve detectives’ interview
styles. Detectives could be randomly assigned to intervention (e.g., training on
compassionate interviewing styles) and control (e. g., no training) groups. The study could
examine the detectives’ performance in a simulated victim interview by measuring
adherence to the compassionate interviewing style and the information elicited by the
“victims” during the interview. While this study would not use actual victims due to
ethical reasons, one possibility is to have those who role—play the “victim” to use a real
story that is personal in nature. This could be an incident of being a victim of a
misdemeanor crime or something that is moderately embarrassing. Prior to the study
being conducted, the “victim” would write out a complete story of the incident, which
would allow the observers to measure if the detectives were able to elicit the complete
account of the incident. In spite of these limitations, the ﬁndings of this study offer new
insights on the legal system’s response to rape victims.

Conclusion
Rape is a horriﬁc crime that causes debilitating psychological and physical health

consequences (Koss et al., 2003). Yet, few reported rapes are ever prosecuted. Many

113

studies have documented the secondary victimization that victims experience by the legal
system and its negative consequences on victims’ well-being. The current study
demonstrated that the negative treatment by law enforcement detectives has a powerful
role in determining whether the case is ultimately prosecuted or not. The current study
used grounded theory methodology to explain how the interactions between victims and
detectives can strengthen or weaken the investigation itself. Detectives supporting the
victim can help produce stronger statements, and thus build a stronger case for
prosecution and prevent additional psychological distress. As such, training detectives on
interviewing style and its impact on victims and the investigation is important for
improving the criminal justice system’s response to rape victims. Furthermore, changing
the criminal justice system’s response to victims would require coordinated, systemic
efforts involving law enforcement, prosecutors, advocates, health care providers, and

victims.

114

APPENDIX A

Background of Larger Research Project

115

The current study was conducted within the context of larger a research project
examining the impact of Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE) programs on the
criminal justice system (see Campbell, Bybee, & Ford, 2006). SANE programs provide
supportive care to victims and quality medical forensic evidence collection to improve
prosecution of perpetrators, and have been implemented in many communities
throughout the United States (Amdt 1988). The larger study was designed to determine
the circumstances and contexts under which SANE programs increase prosecution rates,
and by identifying the mediating mechanisms that explain how and why SANE programs
affect case outcomes. The larger study has four objectives: 1) to compare prosecution
charging rates for cases examined in a SANE program to a sample of adult rape cases
examined using standard hospital protocols in the same community prior to the
implementation of the SANE program; 2) to identify victim, case, and forensic medical
evidence (e.g., injury) characteristics that predict prosecutors’ charging decisions; 3) the
investigational practices for police ofﬁcers who have completed a SANE criminal justice
training program will be compared to those who have not gone through training to
determine if there have been substantive changes in police reports since the emergence of
the SANE program; and 4) explore how the emotional support provided to
victims/survivors by the SANE program and victim advocates increased their
participation during the investigation and prosecution.

To achieve these aims, quantitative data were collected from police and
prosecutor records, and qualitative data were collected through interviews with victims,
law enforcement, and prosecutors. The current study draws on the qualitative data;

speciﬁcally sections of victim interviews focusing on their experiences with responding

116

officers (e. g., road patrol) to determine if the offender was arrested early in the legal
process and prior to the detectives involvement. In addition, the current study utilizes the
segments of the interviews regarding the victims’ experiences with detectives to
understand how victims perceive and are affected by the detectives’ manner of

questioning.

117

APPENDIX B

Qualitative Survivor/Victim Interview Protocol

118

Participant ID Number Interviewer ID Number

Date Interview Conducted Length of Interview

 

 

INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

As we talked about before, this interview will take approximately 2 hours to complete. Is
there somewhere you have to be after the interview, or is it ok if we run a little bit over?

I am doing these interviews to gain a better understanding of what it was like for you to
have a medical/forensic sexual assault exam and what your experiences were like with
police and prosecutors.

I really appreciate your willingness to talk with me today and share your experiences.
The information you provide will be extremely helpful.

If it’s ok with you, I would like to tape record this interview. It’s going to be hard for me
to get everything down on paper, so the tape can help me later on ﬁlling in anything I
might have missed. The only other people who might listen to this tape will be the
project supervisors. When the project is done, the tape will be destroyed. May I tape
record our discussion?

Everything we discuss today is private and conﬁdential—your name will not be
connected to anything you say. Your name is not on this interview or the tape.

As we’re going through the interview, if you need to take a break or stop, just let me
know. If there are any questions that you don’t want to answer, just say so, and I will

move on to the next section. You do not have to answer all of the questions in this
interview.

Before we get started I need to get your consent to be interviewed (go through procedures
to obtain informed consent).

Do you have any questions before we start?

119

SECTION ONE
INVOLVEMENT IN THE PROJECT

I’d like to start off by talking a little about how you heard about this study and how you

decided to participate in the interview.

Q1. How did you hear about this study?

Q2. Why did you decide to participate?
What made you decide to contact us for an interview?

Q3.Were there speciﬁc things that made you reluctant to contact us for an interview?

a. If so, what were those concerns?
' b. How can we address those concerns as we go through the interview?

120

SECTION TWO
BACKGROUND ON THE ASSAULT

As you know, I’m here today to talk with you about the assault and your experiences
afterward with the sexual assault exam and the criminal justice system. So if it’s ok with
you I would like to go ahead and begin by asking you about the assault itself.

Q4.Could you tell me about the assault? What happened?
Could you tell me your story?

Thank you for sharing your experience with me. I’d like to ask you a few speciﬁc
questions about the assault so that I can understand more fully.

PROBES:
a. How long ago did the assault happen?

b. How old were you at the time of the assault?

c. Type of assault

1 = STRANGER RAPE

2 = ACQUAINTANCE RAPE

3 = DATE RAPE

4 = LONG-TERM DATING PARTNER

5 = MARITAL RAPE

6 = GANG RAPE/ STRANGER

7 = GANG RAPE/ ACQUAINTANCE

8 = OTHER (Specify )

 

d. Relationship with assailant(s) before the assault

1 = NONE, WERE STRANGERS

2 = KNEW EACH OTHER BY SIGHT

3 = FRIENDS, CASUAL

4 = FRIENDS, CLOSE

5 = DATING

6 = MARRIED/LIFE COMMITMENT

7 = SEPARATED

8 = DIVORCED

9 = OTHER ( )
10 = DON’T REMEMBER

 

e. Living together

1=YES
2=NO

121

Ask only if she was the victim ofnon-stranger rape

ee. Was this assault part of an isolated incident or was it part of an
ongoing abusive relationship?

1 = SINGLE SEXUAL ASSAULT

PROBE: so, fast to clarify, was he emotionally, physically, or
sexually abusive outside of the incident you described?

(CIRCLE ALL THATAPPLY)

2 = MULTIPLE SEXUAL ASSAULTS
3= EMOTIONALLY ABUSIVE
4 = NON-SEXUAL PHYSICAL VIOLENCE

f. Race/ethnicity of the assailant

1 = WHITE

2 = AF RICAN-AMERICAN/BLACK

3 = LATINO/HISPANIC

4 = NATIVE AMERICAN INDIAN

5 = ASIAN AMERICAN

6 = ARABIC-AMERICAN

7 = OTHER (Specify )
8 = DON’T KNOW

g. In addition to the injury of rape itself, were there any other physical injuries
you sustained from the assault?

1 = YES (Specify

 

0 = NO
2 = DON’T KNOW

h. Was a weapon used in the assault?

1 = YES (Specify

 

0 = NO
2 = DON’T KNOW

i. Was the assailant using alcohol at the time of the assault?

1 = YES
0 = NO
2 = DON’T KNOW

122

j. Was the assailant using drugs at the time of the assault?

1 = YES (GO TO QUESTION ii)
0 = NO (GO TO QUESTION/t)
2 = DON’T KNOW

jj. Assailant was using

MARIJUANA 1 = YES 2 = NO
TRANQUILIZERS 1 = YES 2 = NO
AMPHETAMINES 1 = YES 2 = NO
COCAINE/CRACK l = YES 2 = NO

HEROIN 1 = YES 2 = NO
HALLUCINOGENIC 1 = YES 2 = NO
OTHER (SPECIFY )

 

8 = DON’T REMEMBER

Next I would like to ask you about whether you were using alcohol or drugs at the
time of the assault. Before you answer, please let me explain why I’m asking this
question. What happened to you was in no way your fault. Regardless of your
answer, you are in no way to blame for what you experienced.

We only ask this question because sometimes people who were using alcohol or
drugs when they were assaulted may be treated differently by police, medical
staff, or others. Remember that you do not want to answer any of the questions in
the interview, we can just move on.

k. Were you using alcohol at the time of the assault?

1 = YES
0 = NO
2 = DON’T KNOW

I. Were you using drugs at the time of the assault?

1 = YES (GO TO QUESTION 11)
0 = NO (GO TO QUESTION 5)
2 = DON’T KNOW

 

11. You were using

MARIJUANA 1 = YES 2 = NO
TRANQUILIZERS 1 = YES 2 = NO
AMPHETAMINES l = YES 2 = NO
COCAINE/CRACK l = YES 2 = NO

HEROIN 1 = YEs 2 = NO
HALLUCINOGENIC 1 = YES 2 = NO
OTHER (SPECIFY )

 

8 = DON’T REMEMBER

123

SECTION THREE
EXPERIENCE AFTER THE ASSAULT

Now I would like to discuss with you your experiences after the assault.

Q5. What happened right after the assault?
What did you do immediately afterwards?

If she discusses exam/FNEP first/foremost, start with questions on the sexual assault
exam (PA GE 7)

[f she discusses police first/foremost, start with questions on the police/CJ (PA GE 9)

REMEMBER—IF START WITH POLICE QUEST/0N3; CYCLE BA CK T0 EXAM
QUESTIONS

124

SECTION FOUR
EXPERIENCE WITH THE SEXUAL ASSAULT EXAM

Now I would like to talk to you about the sexual assault medical exam that you received

Q6. How did you come to have an exam?
What happened that led you to having a sexual assault medical exam?

DISCUSSION PROBES:
a. Referral? How did hear about medical sexual assault exam?
b. What made you decide to have an exam (was it a choice)?

c. Where did you have the exam? FNEP, hospital, or private doctor?

Q7.What concerns did you have about the sexual assault exam?

Q8. Could you tell me about your experience with the medical professiona1(s) that
examined you?

N URSE/ DOCTOR DISCUSSION PROBES:

a. Who did the exam

b. What did the nurse/doctor do? (actions & services)

c. How did the nurse/doctor treat you?

(I. How did she/he make you feel?

e. Overall, supportive? helpful? healing?

f. Overall, not so good? wish didn’t happen? wish didn’t say?

g. What did you need that you didn’t get?

125

Q9. Was there an advocate there with you?
(An advocate would have been a female volunteer, not a nurse or doctor, who
explained things, answered questions, gave you information)

ADVOCA TE DISCUSSION PROBES:

a. What did the advocate do? (actions & services)

b. How did the advocate treat you?

c. How did she make you feel?

(1. Overall, supportive? helpful? healing?

e. Overall, not so good? wish didn’t happen? wish didn’t say?

f. What did you need that you didn’t get?

g. What was it like having both the nurse/doctor and the advocate there with you?

126

SECTION FIVE
EXPERIENCES WITH POLICE

In this next section of the interview, I would like to talk about your experiences with the

ﬁrst police ofﬁcers and detective(s) who handled your case, if you met with them.

Q10. Did you report the assault to the police?

[Ask only if relevant; if she reported the assault]

Q11. How did you come into contact with the police?
How did you decide to contact the police about the assault?

Q12. What concerns did you have about contacting the police?

Q13. What was your experience with the police like?

POLICE EXPERIENCE DISCUSSION PROBES:

a. Sequence of events

b. What did the police do? (actions & services)

c. How did the police treat you?

(I. How did the police make you feel?

e. Overall, supportive? helpful? healing?

f. Overall, not so good? wish didn’t happen? wish didn’t say?

g. What did you need that you didn’t get?

h. Role of hospital, doctor, or FNEP

127

SECTION SIX
EXPERIENCES WITH PROSECUTORS/PROSECUTION

[Ask this section only if relevant]

In this next section of the interview, I would like to talk about your experiences with the
prosecutor and prosecution of the case.

Q14. Did you participate in prosecution?

Q15. What inﬂuenced your decision to prosecute or not to prosecute?

Q16. What were your concerns about continuing with prosecution?

Q17. What was your experience with prosecution like?

PROSEC UT OR EXPERIENCE DISCUSSION PROBES:

a. Sequence of events

b. What did the prosecutor do? (actions & services)

c. How did the prosecutor treat you?

d. How did the prosecutor make you feel?

e. Overall, supportive? helpful? healing?

f. Overall, not so good? wish didn’t happen? wish didn’t say?

g. What did you need that you didn’t get?

h. Role of h03pital, doctor, or FNEP

128

SECTION SEVEN
OUTCOME OF THE CASE

[Ask this section only if relevant I

Q18. What was the outcome of your case?

Q19. How did you feel about (the outcome)?

COURT HEARINGS DISCUSSION PROBES:

a. Did you testify/experience with court hearings
b. Nurse/doctor testifying

c. Pictures of injuries shown

(I. Was a RCC staff person or court advocate there to support you?
i. Helpful? Supportive? Healing
ii. Not so good? Wish didn’t say? Wish had been different?
iii. Needed that you didn’t get?

129

SECTION EIGHT
ROLE OF MEDICAL/FORENSIC EVIDENCE

[Ask section only if relevant I
Now I would like to ask you about the evidence collected from you during your

medical sexual assault exam and the inﬂuence it had on your experience with
prosecution.

Q20. Did you ﬁnd out the evidence and ﬁndings from your exam?
Did you know what the ﬁndings were from your exam?

E VIDENCE/DNA DISCUSSION PROBES:

a. When found out?

b. How? Who told you?
c. Findings?

(1. Inﬂuence on prosecution?

e. Inﬂuence on your participation, engagement in prosecution process

DNA

0 = Negative

1 = Positive

2 = Inconclusive
8 = Don’t Know
INJURIES

0 = Negative

1= Positive

2 = Inconclusive
8 = Don’t know

130

BEFORE MOVE ON TO FINAL SECTIONS OF INTER VIE W, ASSESS WHETHER THE
INTER VIEW DISCUSSIONS HA VE CAPTURED THESE ISSUES—IF NOT} PROBE
MORE:

FACTORS THAT INFLUENCED VIC TIM PAR T ICIPA T [ON IN LEGAL PROCESS

WHY DID PAR T ICIPA TE (IF DID)

WHY DIDN’T PAR TICIPA TE (IF DIDN’T)

BARRIERS T 0 PAR T I CIPA T I 0N

SUPPORTS NEEDED FOR PAR T I CIPA T [ON

131

SECTION NINE
DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

Finally, I would like to ask you a few questions about yourself so we can have some
background information about the women we interview.

Q21. What is your ethnicity?

Q22. How old are you?

Q23. What is the highest level of education you have completed?

Q24. Are you currently employed outside the home (kind of work do)?

132

SECTION TEN
CLOSING

We are nearly ﬁnished. We’ve talked for a long time and about many different issues
related to the assault, and now I would just like to ask some ﬁnal questions about your
overall experience of the assault and about your experience in this interview.

Q25. What has helped you heal?
What has been the most healing to you?

Q26. Based on your experiences, what would you say or do for another woman
who has just been assaulted?

We’re always in the process of revising this interview, so I’d also like to get your
feedback on the interview. It would be really helpful for me if you’d be honest about
what this was like for you. Don’t worry—you won’t hurt my feelings.

Q27. What has it been like for you to talk about the assault with me?

Q28. How can we improve the interview?

Thank you very much for your time. I appreciate you sharing your experience.
Do you have any questions for me?

133

APPENDIX C

Sample Memos

134

Memo: Why differential treatment by detectives?

It appears that some victims have positive experiences with the detectives. The
victims are reporting their detectives as exhibiting empathy, saying it is not the victims’
fault, expressing belief of the victim, non-blaming, and putting effort into the case. Other
victims had negative experiences with the detectives including a cold response,
communicating disbelief in the victims’ stories, and not informing them about the steps
and stages of prosecution. It appears that the positive responses by the detectives are
being experienced by victims whose cases were eventually prosecuted. Victims who had
negative experiences seem to have non-prosecuted cases. If detectives want victims to
remain cooperative, it seems important that they treat victims well. In addition, I have
heard prosecutors say that it is important for the victim to be cooperative when testifying
during a hearing or trial. Victims who are angry appear less credible to judges and jurors.

These positive and negative experiences are beginning to emerge but it’s still
unknown what the victims think or feel about them. In future interviews, probe more
about a) how these experiences affected the victims; b) what did it mean to the victims to
receive this type of treatment; and c) how did this treatment inﬂuence their experience

with the investigation or their participation in the prosecutorial process.

135

Memo: Partnering

Thus far, the story of the data seems to be about the interactions or relationships
between victims and detectives. There seems to be a partnering process happening
between the victim and detective with prosecuted cases. Detectives ask victims factual
questions to help with the case (together they make the case stronger). They appear more
united (together we stand against the offender). It appears that victims contributing to the
investigation make them feel like they have more control.

Cases that are not prosecuted seem different. Victims seem put (or feeling put) in
a more passive stance of merely responding to detectives or waiting for detectives to do
something (e. g., calling them back). In these cases, 1 picture the detective putting their
arm out with their hand on the victims’ forehead to keep the victims at bay (cold,
standofﬁsh). Sometimes I picture the victims running in this position and getting no
where (e. g., victims suggesting leads but detective does not follow or victims trying to

contact the detective repeatedly without a return phone call).

136

Memo: Humanizing

A few survivors have mentioned that detectives were either 1) just acting as
information gatherers (formal or businesslike) or 2) talking and looking at them (this was
described as helpful or supportive, which may be an indicator of the detective being
engaged). It seems like these acts of talking, providing referrals, engaging victims in
conversation is a sign of caring to victims. But I also think it has a humanizing element —
these behaviors make victims feel like they are more than evidence - they are humans
who experienced a crime and deserve compassion. I think that this humanizing element is
connected to partnering. When detectives partner with victims, it makes them less than
evidence; they have a role — an important role — in the investigational process beyond

being a container of evidence.

137

Memo: Strong relationships with detectives

4122 felt a connection with her detective. She felt safe, comfortable, and protected (heard
this from others). She felt a great loss when the detective left the unit. It seems like being
able to relate to and trust the detective is important to victims and to their ability to ﬁrlly
disclose their story. Many victims with prosecuted cases seem to have this type of intense
relationship with their detectives — even refer to them by their ﬁrst name like a friend
(victims with non-prosecuted cases seem to refer to detectives by their last names — not
sure how much this applies to all cases). 13 feeling like the detective is a friend a
byproduct of being treated like an equal or partner in the case? Again, having a strong
relationship with a detective moves the victim away from being just a container of

evidence — relationships are humanizing.

Memo: Belief and Comforting

Detectives communicating (verbally or non-verbally) that they believe or do not
believe the victims seems different for cases that were prosecuted and not prosecuted.
Victims with prosecuted cases report that the detectives express that they believe them or
are “on their side.” Communicating belief seems to bring relief to victims and increase
their comfort while communicating disbelief seems to contribute to victims giving up in
disclosing their stories. Detectives comforting victims also seems to appear to be
different for prosecuted and non-prosecuted cases. It appears that some detectives focus
on making the victims comfortable before asking questions while other detectives dive
into the questioning process. Diving into the questions leaves the victim feeling uncared

about and does not leave them the opportunity to tell their complete story.

138

Memo: Why Does Good Treatment by Detectives Matter?

Sometimes the victim’s story appears to be disrupted by the detective’s manner of
questioning (e. g. harsh or lack of compassion). The victim statement is critical to the case
being prosecuted; cases with weak or inconsistent stories are not going forward unless
there is strong solidifying/corroborating evidence that can stand on its own. Even with
evidence, there needs to be something else to connect the case for it to go forward.
Everything hinges on the victim’s story because ultimately it’s the victim who has to
testify at the preliminary hearing and if the case goes to trial.

The role of law enforcement does not include making victims feel cared about but
their role includes gathering information about the case including the victims’ statements.
Victims will give information if they feel comfortable with detectives. The ﬂow of
communication is disrupted when there is an adversarial relationship; people do not share
if they do not feel comfortable (even heard this from a Lieutenant supervisor). If the
victim feels comfortable and not judged, she can let her guard down and share critical
pieces of her story or tell embarrassing details. If the victim does not feel comfortable or
feels judged, then the ﬂow of information is cut short. Good communication leads to a
clearer picture, which means less going back and forth on getting information; there is

less retelling.

139

Memo: Constructing Justice

My overall argument is that justice for rape victims is partially constructed by
detectives, who serve as the gatekeeper for moving the rape case forward into the system.
My reasoning is that the quality of the interactions between victims and detectives are
substantially different in cases that are prosecuted compared to those that are not
prosecuted from the very beginning of the interview. In prosecuted cases, detectives
gently ask questions at the victims’ pace and exhibit caring and protective behavior,
which subsequently increases the victims’ feelings of comfort, and elicits more
information from victims. In non-prosecuted cases, detectives drill victims with questions
at a rapid pace, approach victims in a cold manner, and treat victims like suspects, which
subsequently lead to victims feeling uncomfortable and thus, limit the information shared
by the victims. Because the detectives’ approaches with victims happens so early in the
interview process, it may be likely that the detectives already have thoughts about the
victim (believes her or not) and what should happen to the case. In essence, this may be
like a case-fulﬁlling prophecy: the detective does not believe the victim when he receives
the responding ofﬁcer’s report, then questions her in a harsh manner that produces a
weaker or inconsistent statement, which then conﬁrms the detective’s opinion that the
victim is not believable and thus, the case does not go forward (either by the detective
who does not believe the victim or the prosecutor who often bases decisions off the

strength of the victim’s statement or the detective’s opinion).

140

Memo: Victim-Offender Relationship

The manner of questioning appears to be different for some victims in the
prosecuted group. It appears that victims of intimate partner rape are not treated as well
as other victims with prosecuted cases. However, victims of partner rape with prosecuted
cases appear to be treated better than victims of partner rape with non-prosecuted cases.

Victims who were raped by strangers were treated compassionately regardless of
case outcome — at least in the initial response. Two cases with victims raped by strangers
were not prosecuted because the offenders were never caught. These victims were treated
with compassion and thus, it is possible that the detectives had intentions to move the
cases forward if the offenders were caught. When comparing the prosecuted and non-
prosecuted cases of victims who were raped by strangers, the detectives’ manner of
questioning seems very similar — both compassionate and gentle. However, one victim
experienced a cold response by a detective after six months had past since making the
initial police report. Do detectives in stranger cases become distant and detached when

the probability of capturing the offender diminishes?

141

REFERENCES

142

REFERENCES

Amdt, S. (1988). Nurses help Santa Cruz sexual assault survivors. California
Nurse, 84, 4-5.

Bachman, R. (1998). The factors related to rape reporting behavior and arrest. Criminal
Justice and Behavior, 25(1), 8—29.

Bletzer, K.V. & Koss, MP. (2006). After-rape among three populations in the Southwest:
A time of mourning, a time for recovery. Violence Against Women, 12(1 ), 5-29.

Bouffard, J. (2000). Predicting type of sexual assault case closure from victim, suspect
and case characteristics. Journal of Criminal Justice, 28, 527-542.

Bradmiller, L.L. & Walters, W.S. (1985). Seriousness of sexual assault charges:
Inﬂuence factors. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 12(4), 463-484.

Campbell, R. (1998). The community response to rape: Victims’ experiences with
the legal, medical and mental health systems. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 25, 355-379.

Campbell, R. (2005). What really happened? A validation study of rape survivors’ help-
seeking experiences with the legal and medical systems. Violence & Victims, 20,
55-68.

Campbell, R. (2006). Rape survivors’ experiences with the legal and medical systems:
Do rape victim advocates make a difference? Violence Against Women, 12(1), 30-
45.

Campbell, R. & Ahrens, CE. (1998). Innovative community services for rape victims:
An application of multiple case study methodology. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 26(4), 537-571.

Campbell, R., Bybee, D., & Ford, J .K. (2006). A Systems Change Analysis ofSANE
Programs: Identifying the Mediating Mechanisms of Criminal Justice System
Impact. NIJ Award 2005-WG-BX-0003. Washington, DC: National Institute of
Justice.

Campbell, R. & Raja, S. (1999). Secondary victimization of rape victims: Insights from

mental health professionals who treat survivors of violence. Violence & Victims,
[4(3), 261-275.

143

Campbell, R., & Raja, S. (2005). The sexual assault and secondary victimization of
female veterans: Help-seeking experiences with military and civilian social
systems. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 97-106.

Campbell, R., Seﬂ, T., Barnes, H.E., Ahrens, C.E., Wasco, S.M., & Zaragoza—Diesfeld,
Y. (1999). Community services for rape survivors: Enhancing psychological well-
being or increasing trauma? Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67,
847-858.

Campbell, R., Seﬂ, T., Wasco, S.M., & Ahrens, CE. (2004). Doing community research
without a community: Creating safe space for rape survivors. American Journal
of Community Psychology, 33 (3/4), 253-261.

Campbell, R., Wasco, S., Ahrens, C., Seﬂ, T., & Barnes, H. (2001). Preventing the
“second rape”: Rape survivors’ experiences with community service providers.
Journal Of Interpersonal Violence, 16(12), 1239-1259.

Chandler, S.M. & Tomey, M. (1981). The decisions and the processing of rape victims
through the criminal justice system. California Sociologist, 4, 155-169.

Chappel], D. Geis, R. & Geis, G. (Eds) (1977). F orcible rape: The crime, the victim, and
the offender. New York: Columbia University Press.

Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through
qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cleveland, H., Koss, M & Lyons, J. (1999). Rape tactics from the survivors’ perspective:
Contextual dependence and within-event independence. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 14(5), 532-547.

Collins, R., Lincoln, R., & Frank, M. (2002). The effect of rapport in forensic
interviewing. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 9(1), 69-78.

Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and
evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, (13), 3-21.

Crandall, C. & Helitzer, D. (2003). Impact evaluation ofa Sexual Assault Nurse
Examiner (SANE) Program. NIJ Document No: 203276; Award Number 98-WT-
VX-0027.

Creswell, J .W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among ﬁve
traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Feldman—Summers, S. & Palmer, GO (1980). Rape as viewed by judges, prosecutors
and police ofﬁcers. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 7(1), 19-40.

144

F ilipas, H.H. & Ullman, SE. (2001). Social reactions to sexual assault victims from
various support sources. Violence and Victims, 16(6), 673-692.

Fisher, RP. (1995). Interviewing victims and witnesses of crime. Psychology, Public
Policy, and Law, I, 732-764.

Fisher, R.P., Geiselman, E.R. & Amador, M. (1989). Field test of the cognitive interview:
Enhancing the recollection of the actual victims and witnesses of crime. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 74(5), 722-727.

Frazier, P., & Haney, B. (1996). Sexual assault cases in the legal system: Police,
prosecutor and victim perspectives. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 607-628.

F rohmann, L. (1997). Discrediting victims’ allegations of sexual assault: Prosecutorial
accounts of case Rejections. Social Problems, 38 (2) 213-226.

Frohmann, L. (1998). Constituting Power in Sexual Assault Cases: Prosecutorial
Strategies for Victim Management. Social Problems 45(3). 393-407.

Galton, E. (1975-1976) Police Processing of Rape Complaints: A Case Study. American
Journal of Criminal Law (4), 15-30.

Galvin, J. & Polk, K. (1983). Attrition in case processing: 13 rape unique? Journal of
Research in Crimeand Delinquency, 20, 126-153.

Giardino, A., Datner, E., & Asher, J. (2003). Sexual assault: Victimization across the life
span: a clinical guide. St. Louis, Mo.: G.W. Medical Publishing.

Glaser, B.G. & Strauss, A. (1967). Discovery of grounded theory. Strategies for
qualitative research. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press

Goldstein, I., & Ford, J.K. (2002). Training in organizations (4” Edition). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth.

Greenberg, M.S. & Ruback, RB. (1992). After the crime: Victim decision making. New
York: Plenum Press.

Herman, IL (1992). Trauma and recovery. New York: Basic Books

Kerstetter, W. (1990). Gateway to justice: police and prosecutor response to sexual
assault against women. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 81(2) 267-313.

Kerstetter, W. & Van Winkle (1990). Who decides? A study of the complainant’s
decision to prosecute in rape cases. Criminal justice and behavior, 17(3), 268-
283.

145

Kingsnorth, R. (2006). Intimate partner violence: Predicotrs of recidivism in a sample of
arrestees. Violence against Women, 12(10), 917-935.

Konradi, A. (2007). Taking the Stand: Rape Survivors and the Prosecution of Rapists.
Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers

Koss, M.P., Bailey, J.A., Yuan, N.P., Herrera, V.M., & Lichter, EL. (2003). Depression
and PTSD in survivors of male violence: Research and training initiatives to
facilitate recovery. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 27, 130-142.

LaFree, G. (1980). Variables affecting guilty pleas and convictions in rape cases: Toward
a social theory of rape processing. Social Forces, 58, 833-850.

LaFree, G. (1981). Ofﬁcial reactions to social problems: Police decisions in sexual
assault cases. Social problems, 28(5) 582-594.

Lebowitz, L., Harvey, M.R. & Herman, J .L. (1993).A stage-by-dimension model of
recovery from sexual trauma. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 8(3), 378-391.

LeGrand, C. (1975). Rape and rape laws: Sexism in society and law. California Law
Review, 61, 919-941.

Littel, K. (2001). Sexual assault nurse examiner programs: Improving the community
response to sexual assault victims. Oﬁce for Victims of Crime Bulletin, 4, 1-19.

Logan, T., Evans, L., Stevenson, E., & Jordan, CE. (2005). Barriers to services for rural
and urban survivors of rape. Journal ofInterpersonal Violence, 20(5), 591-616.

Lonsway, L., Welch, S., & Fitzgerald, L. (2001). Police training in sexual assault
response. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 28, 695-730.

Madigan, L. & Gamble, N. (1991). The Second rape: Society’s continued betrayal of the
victim. New York: Lexington Books.

Martin, P.Y. (2005). Rape work: Victims, gender, and emotions in organization and
community context. New York, Routledge.

Martin, P.Y. & Powell, M. (1995). Accounting for the second assault: legal
organization’s’ framing of rape victims. Law and Social Inquiry, 20, 853-890.

Mignon, S.L. & Holmes, W.M. (1995). Police response to mandatory arrest laws. Crime
& Delinquency, 41(4). 430-442.

Miles, M.B., & Huberrnan, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded
sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

146

Monroe, L.M., Kinney, L.M., Weist, M.D., Dafeamekpor, D.S., Dantzler, J. & Reynolds,
M.W. (2005). The experience of sexual assault: Findings from a statewide victim
needs assessment. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20(7), 767-777.

Patterson, D., Greeson, M.R., & Campbell, R. (2008). Protect thyself: Understanding
rape survivors’ decisions not to seek help ﬁ'om social systems. Manuscript
submitted for publication.

Patton, MO. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd Ed). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.

Poole, D.A. & White, LT. (1991). Effects of question repetition on the eyewitness
testimony of children and adults. Developmental Psychology, 27(6), 975-986.

QSR International. (2006). N VI V07 software. Doncaster, Australia: Author.

Robinson, D.G. & Robinson, J.C. (1995). Performance consulting: Moving beyond
training. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Rose, V. & Randall, S. (1982). The impact of investigator perceptions of victim
legitimacy on the processing of rape/sexual assault cases. Symbolic Interaction,
5, 23-36.

Sandelowski, M. (1995). Sample size in qualitative research. Research in Nursing &
Health, 18(2), 179-183.

Spears, 1., & Spohn, C. (1996). The genuine victim and prosecutors’ charging decisions
in sexual assault cases. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 20(2), 183-205.

Spears, J. & Spohn, C. (1997). The effect of evidence factors and victim characteristics
on prosecutors’ charging decisions in sexual assault cases. Justice Quarterly, 14
(3), 501-524.

Spohn, C., Beichner, D., & Davis—Frenzel, E. (2001). Prosecutorial justiﬁcations for
sexual assault case rejection: Guarding the “gateway to justice”. Social
Problems, 48(2), 206-235.

Spohn, C., & Homey, J. (1993). Rape law reform and the effect of victim characteristics
on case processing. Journal of Quantitative Criminology ,9(4), 383-409.

Starks, H. & Trinidad, SB. (2007). Choose your method: A comparison of
phenomenology, discourse analysis, and grounded theory. Qualitative Health
Research, 17(10), 1372-13 80.

147

Starzynski, L.L., Ullman, S.E., F ilipas, H.H. & Townsend, SM. (2005). Correlates of
women’s sexual assault disclosure to informal and formal support sources.
Violence and Victims, 20(4), 417-432.

Stephens, B.J. & Sinden, PG. (2000). Victims’ voices: Domestic assault victims’
perspectives of police demeanor. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15(5), 534-

547.

Strauss A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory
procedures and techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ullman, SE. (1996). Do social reactions to sexual assault victims vary by support
provider? Violence and Victims, 11(2), 143-156.

Wriggins, J. (1983). Rape, racism, and the law. Harvard Women’s Law Journal, 6,
140-141.

Zweig, J .M. & Burt, MR. (2006). Predicting women's perceptions of domestic violence
and sexual assault agency helpfulness. Violence against Women, 13, 1149-1178

148