Research has documented that few reported rapes are prosecuted by the legal system. 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’ manner of questioning affects rape victims’ level of disclosure. Using qualitative methodology, the results show that the detectives’ manner of questioning can play a role in victims’ disclosure. Detectives using a gentle manner of questioning with victims can help produce stronger victim statements and thus build stronger cases for prosecution.
BachmanR. (1998). The factors related to rape reporting behavior and arrest. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 25, 8-29.
2.
BletzerK. V.KossM. P. (2006). After-rape among three populations in the Southwest: A time of mourning, a time for recovery. Violence Against Women, 12, 5-29.
3.
CampbellR. (1998). The community response to rape: Victims’ experiences with the legal, medical and mental health systems. American Journal of Community Psychology, 25, 355-379.
4.
CampbellR. (2005). What really happened? A validation study of rape survivors’ help-seeking experiences with the legal and medical systems. Violence & Victims, 20, 55-68.
5.
CampbellR. (2006). Rape survivors’ experiences with the legal and medical systems: Do rape victim advocates make a difference?Violence Against Women, 12, 30-45.
6.
CampbellR.RajaS. (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.
7.
CampbellR.SeflT.WascoS. M.AhrensC. E. (2004). Doing community research without a community: Creating safe space for rape survivors. American Journal of Community Psychology, 33, 253-261.
8.
CampbellR.WascoS.AhrensC.SeflT.BarnesH. (2001). Preventing the “second rape”: Rape survivors’ experiences with community service providers. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16, 1239-1259.
9.
CharmazK. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
10.
CollinsR.LincolnR.FrankM. (2002). The effect of rapport in forensic interviewing. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 9, 69-78.
11.
CrandallC.HelitzerD. (2003). Impact evaluation of a Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE) Program. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
12.
CreswellJ. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
13.
FilipasH. H.UllmanS. E. (2001). Social reactions to sexual assault victims from various support sources. Violence and Victims, 16, 673-692.
14.
FisherR. P. (1995). Interviewing victims and witnesses of crime. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 1, 732-764.
15.
FrazierP.HaneyB. (1996). Sexual assault cases in the legal system: Police, prosecutor and victim perspectives. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 607-628.
16.
FrohmannL. (1997). Discrediting victims’ allegations of sexual assault: Prosecutorial accounts of case rejections. Social Problems, 38, 213-226.
17.
FrohmannL. (1998). Constituting power in sexual assault cases: Prosecutorial strategies for victim management. Social Problems, 45, 393-407.
18.
GiardinoA.DatnerE.AsherJ. (2003). Sexual assault: Victimization across the life span: A clinical guide. St. Louis, MO: G.W. Medical.
19.
HermanJ. L. (1992). Trauma and recovery. New York: Basic Books.
20.
KerstetterW. (1990). Gateway to justice: Police and prosecutor response to sexual assault against women. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 81, 267-313.
21.
KerstetterW.Van WinkleB. (1990). Who decides? A study of the complainant’s decision to prosecute in rape cases. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17, 268-283.
22.
KilpatrickD. G.EdmundsC. N.SeymourA. K. (1992). Rape in America: A report to the nation. Charleston, SC: National Victim Center.
23.
KonradiA. (2007). Taking the stand: Rape survivors and the prosecution of rapists. Westport, CT: Praeger.
24.
LonswayK.WelchS.FitzgeraldL. (2001). Police training in sexual assault response. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 28, 695-730.
25.
MartinP. Y. (2005). Rape work: Victims, gender, and emotions in organization and community context. New York: Routledge.
26.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
27.
MonroeL. M.KinneyL. M.WeistM. D.DafeamekporD. S.DantzlerJ.ReynoldsM. W. (2005). The experience of sexual assault: Findings from a statewide victim needs assessment. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20, 767-777.
PattonM. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
30.
PattersonD.GreesonM.CampbellR. (2009). Understanding rape survivors’ decisions not to seek help from formal social systems. Health & Social Work, 34, 127-136.
SpearsJ.SpohnC. (1996). The genuine victim and prosecutors’ charging decisions in sexual assault cases. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 20, 183-205.
33.
SpearsJ.SpohnC. (1997). The effect of evidence factors and victim characteristics on prosecutors’ charging decisions in sexual assault cases. Justice Quarterly, 14, 501-524.
34.
SpohnC.BeichnerD.Davis-FrenzelE. (2001). Prosecutorial justifications for sexual assault case rejection: Guarding the “gateway to justice.”Social Problems, 48, 206-235.
35.
StarksH.TrinidadS. B. (2007). Choose your method: A comparison of phenomenology, discourse analysis, and grounded theory. Qualitative Health Research, 17, 1372-1380.
36.
StraussA.CorbinJ. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
