One goal of criminal law reform regarding rape has been to enhance convictions. Data from California, in which several such reforms have been introduced, indicate that between 1975 and 1982: (1) police clearance rates for rape have remained relatively unchanged; (2) the rate of court filings for rape increased slightly; (3) the probability of a conviction once a case reached court was relatively unchanged; but that (4) there was a strong upward trend for cases of rape (and other serious felonies) to lead to an institutional sentence. Questions are raised about whether these “deep-end” effects meet the intent of rape law reform.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bienen, L.1980“National developments in rape reform legislation.”Women's Rights Law Reporter6: 170-213.
2.
Bureau of Criminal Statistics (BCS), State of California
1977 Offender Based Transactional Statistics (OBTS) in Fifty Six Counties: 1975.
3.
Bureau of Criminal Statistics (BCS), State of California
1978a Offender Based Transaction Statistics in Fifty Seven Counties: 1976.
4.
Bureau of Criminal Statistics (BCS), State of California
1978b Offender Based Transaction Statistics in Fifty Seven Counties: 1977.
5.
Bureau of Criminal Statistics (BCS), State of California
1979 Criminal Justice Profile 1978 (Statewide). Sacramento: BCS.
6.
Bureau of Criminal Statistics (BCS), State of California
1980 Criminal Justice Profile 1979 (Statewide). Sacramento: BCS.
7.
Bureau of Criminal Statistics (BCS), State of California
1981 Criminal Justice Profile 1980 (Statewide and Individual Counties). Sacramento: BCS.
8.
Bureau of Criminal Statistics (BCS), State of California
1982 Criminal Justice Profile 1981. Sacramento: BCS.
9.
Bureau of Criminal Statistics (BCS), State of California
1983 Criminal Justice Profile 1982. Sacramento: BCS.
10.
Chappell, D.1984“The impact of rape legislation reform: some contemporary trends.”Int. J. of Women's Studies7: 70-80.
11.
Chappell, D.
, C. Legrand, and J. Reich 1979 Forcible Rape: An Analysis of Legal Issues. Washington, DC: National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice.
12.
Clark, L.
and D. Lewis 1977 Rape: The Price of Coercive Sexuality. Toronto: The Women's Press.
13.
Feldman-Summers, S.
and K. Lindner1976“Perception of victims and defendants in criminal assault cases.”Criminal Justice and Behavior3, 2: 135-150.
14.
Galvin, J.
and K. Polk1983“Attrition in case processing: is rape unique?”J. of Research in Crime and Delinquency20: 126-156.
15.
Goode, E.
1983 Deviant Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
16.
Kalvin, H.
and H. Zeisel 1966 The American Jury. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
17.
Loh, W. D.1980“The impact of common law and reform rape statutes on prosecution: an empirical study.”Washington Law Review55: 543-655.
18.
Loh, W. D.1981“What has reform of rape legislation wrought? A: truth in criminal labelling.”J. of Social Issues37, 4: 28-52.
19.
McCaldon, R. J.1967“Rape.”Canadian J. of Corrections9, 37.
20.
Robin, G. D.1977“Forcible rape: institutionalized sexism in the criminal justice system.”Crime & Delinquency23, 2: 136-153.
21.
Russell, D.E.H.
1975 The Politics of Rape: The Victim's Perspective. New York: Stein & Day.
22.
Russell, D.E.H.1982“The prevalence and incidence of forcible rape and attempted rape of females.”Victimology7: 81-93.
23.
Scroggs, J. R.1976“Penalties for rape as a function of victim provocativeness, damage, and resistance.”J. of Applied Social Psychology6: 360-368.
