Abstract
Sexual assault case attrition is pervasive within the criminal justice process. Despite initiating a police report following sexual victimization, many survivors make the decision to withdraw their police report and do not proceed with charges. Attrition of sexual assault cases at the point of entry to the criminal justice system is problematic for survivors as justice is not achieved and connections to support services are lacking. As such, the purpose of this research was to explore the first-hand account of sexual assault survivors who withdrew their report of sexual assault after disclosing the victimization to the police. Qualitative research was used to explore the experience of 14 sexual assault survivors who met the inclusion criteria for the study. Data collection included open-ended interviews that were audio-recorded, transcribed, and entered into NVIVO for analysis. Colaizzi’s analytic method was used to analyze the data and resulted in the identification of three themes related to the decision not to pursue charges and a fourth theme describing the overall essence of the decision-making process. These themes included: (1) Overwhelming Police Process, (2) Police Communication about Charging/Process, (3) Loss of Faith in Justice System, and (4) No Hope. These findings provide insight from survivors supporting the saliency of the disclosure experience and the power of police communication. A trauma-informed police response during sexual assault disclosures is recommended based on the critical importance of supporting survivors, improving the investigative process, and holding perpetrators accountable. This approach may decrease attrition and improve justice for victims.
Keywords
Sexual assault is a gendered crime affecting one in four women in their lifetime (Smith et al., 2018). The health and social consequences of sexual assault can be severe and long-lasting (Dworkin et al., 2017). Despite the high prevalence of sexual assault and deleterious effects, it remains the most underreported crime to the police (Conroy & Cotter, 2017) and 80% of reported cases are never prosecuted (Rotenberg, 2017). Attrition of sexual assault cases (e.g., withdrawing charges) at the point of entry to the criminal justice system (the police) is also problematic for survivors as justice for victimization is not achieved and connections to support services are lacking (Murphy et al., 2014). When perpetrators of sexual assault are not held accountable, the risk of reoffending is increased as it conveys that there are no penalties for sexual assault. Little is known regarding the context/decision making process when sexual assault survivors initiate a report to the police and subsequently withdraw their report prior to an arrest or transfer of the case to the prosecution. An increased understanding of sexual assault survivors’ rationales for withdrawing cases may provide insight into the reporting experience, response of the criminal justice system, and the needs of survivors (Rotenberg, 2017). This is important as the quality of the disclosure experience is critical to mitigating the negative effects of the assault (Ahrens & Aldana, 2012; Ullman & Peter-Hagene, 2014).
Background
Sexual assault is considered the most underreported crime to law enforcement (Conroy & Cotter, 2017; Ministry of the Status of Women, 2015; Perreault, 2015), with fewer than 6% of sexual assaults reported to the police in North America (Conroy & Cotter, 2017; Wolitzky-Taylor et al., 2011). Survivors cite varied reasons for refraining from reporting to the police, including feeling it is too minor to report, fear of exposure to family or friends, lack of evidence (Conroy & Cotter, 2017), fear of reprisal or retaliation by the offender (Wolitzky-Taylor et al., 2011), fear of disbelief from police, the use of substances at the time of the assault (Spencer et al., 2017), and fear of being blamed (Spencer et al., 2017; Wolitzky-Taylor et al., 2011). Despite the multitude of barriers to reporting sexual assault, those who do report to the police tend to ascribe to society’s narrative of the stereotypical rape victim. These “real rape” stereotypes depict a credible victim who is suddenly raped by a stranger with a weapon and sustains physical injury (Wolitzky-Taylor et al., 2011). Reporting sexual victimization that aligns more closely with societal expectations of a “real” rape may be perceived by survivors as more believable to law enforcement officials.
Police officers are the first point of contact with the criminal justice system and therefore they are considered important gatekeepers to the criminal justice process (Wentz & Keimig, 2019). While decision-making to proceed through the reporting process and investigation is often believed to be the choice of the sexual assault survivor, police officers have considerable discretion in deciding which cases are transferred to the prosecution (Murphy et al., 2014), regardless of the survivor’s intentions to continue. Within the scope of their role, police have discretionary power to determine the level of resources to attribute to the investigation, whether or not to charge a suspect, and whether the case should be brought forward to the prosecution (Spohn & Tellis, 2012). As such, police officers have a critical role in ensuring that sexual assault survivors are provided the opportunity to hold perpetrators accountable and to attain closure for themselves as victims.
Despite the pivotal role of the investigation, few sexual assault survivors who disclose the assault to the police are successful in attaining justice for their victimization (Rotenberg, 2017). Sexual assault case attrition, which refers to cases that drop out of the criminal justice system at various stages (Rotenberg, 2017), is pervasive within the criminal justice process (Morabito et al., 2019). Attrition is often based on both legal (i.e., physical evidence) and extralegal factors (i.e., victim intoxication) (Spohn & Tellis, 2012; Venema et al., 2021). In North America, few police-reported sexual assaults proceed to court as only 0.09% of sexual assault cases in the US are referred to the prosecutor (Department of Justice, 2017), and only 20% of police-reported sexual assaults in Canada make it to the court process (Rotenberg, 2017). This demonstrates a significant problem in the criminal justice process at the point of entry to the system.
Although police discretion is one reason for attrition, many victims make the decision to withdraw their police report and do not proceed with charges (Spohn & Tellis, 2012). Survivors’ decisions to withdraw their report during police disclosure is often labeled by police as “failure to cooperate” with the investigation (Murphy et al., 2014) and may misrepresent survivors’ rational for their decision to withdraw their report. Little is known regarding the rationale for case attrition following a report to the police. In a study which explored case attrition at the reporting stage, approximately one third of police incident reports documented that the “victim chose to drop the case” as the outcome and less than half had an explicit reason for not pursuing charges (Murphy et al., 2014). Among those who did report a rationale to drop the case, reasons for attrition included stress with the process, psychological distress from the reporting process and the assault, hospitalization for unrelated ailments, incarceration of the suspect for another crime, desire for police to only warn the suspect, and fear and self-blame. Given the importance of the reporting stage, the findings that attrition rates were approximately 33% is alarming. In addition, the omission of the victim’s rationale for the decision to withdraw in the majority of cases is of great concern and warrants further exploration.
Evidence suggests that victims may withdraw from participation in the criminal justice system based on the attitudes and behaviors of the police (Dewald & Lorenz, 2022), thereby highlighting the important function of the initial police investigation. Since witnesses are often absent in sexual assault cases, the quality of the survivor’s report and the depth of the police interview and related documentation are critical to successful prosecutorial outcomes (Haskell & Randall, 2019; Patterson, 2011a, 2011b). Patterson (2011a) explored the disclosure experience of sexual assault victims and found that those who had positive interactions with the police had higher levels of engagement and increased levels of disclosure of sexual victimization when compared to victims who experienced the police interaction as negative. In addition, victims who felt supported and validated by the police were more successful in achieving prosecution for their sexual assault case. Support during disclosure is effective in engagement with the criminal justice system, whereas disbelief and blame increase feelings of hopelessness, secondary victimization, and deters disclosures in the future (Greeson et al., 2016; Lonsway & Archambault, 2019; Murphy-Oikonen et al., 2022). As such, it is possible that negative police interaction may lead to a sense of hopelessness and fear impacting a victim’s decision to proceed with their case. Therefore, exploring survivors’ decisions to withdraw their reports from the police is important to understand their experience and develop interventions to support them in their quest for justice and appropriate support services. The purpose of this research is to explore how sexual assault survivors make the decision to withdraw their reports after disclosing the sexual assault to the police and prior to involvement with the court system.
Method
Purposive sampling was used as it is based on the central tenet of selecting individuals who have experienced the phenomenon of interest (Creswell, 2007). Participants were recruited from a mid-sized Canadian city and two surrounding areas. Participants were recruited at two different time intervals. The first recruitment occurred between April and July, 2019, and the second recruitment period occurred between June and July, 2020. Social Media advertising such as Facebook and Instagram were used to recruit participants. Individuals wishing to learn more about the research study were invited to contact the research assistant via cellular telephone or email.
The eligibility criteria to participate in the study included that the survivor: (a) experienced a sexual assault which was reported to police; (b) made the decision not to pursue charges after disclosure to the police and prior to any court appearance; (c) was able to speak English in order to provide consent and participate in interviews within the designated study region; and (d) was over the age of 14 at the time of the sexual assault. Participants were excluded from the research if: (a) the police made the decision not to pursue charges; or (b) the decision not to pursue charges was made following the initiation of the court proceedings. A research assistant screened prospective participants by telephone to ensure they met the inclusion criteria for the research. A full explanation of the study, informed consent, and re-assessment of eligibility was conducted by the principal investigator or a co-investigator in-person or over the telephone prior to the interview.
Data collection for the first round of recruitment included one-to-two semi-structured face-to-face interviews (n = 7) while the second round of recruitment included one-to-two semi-structured interviews via telephone (due to COVID-19 restrictions) (n = 7). The interviews were open-ended and followed an interview guide which was developed from a review of the literature and researcher expertise. The interview consisted of questions in three areas including the sexual assault (Can you describe the sexual assault in as much detail as you are comfortable sharing?), the experience reporting the sexual assault to the police (Can you describe what you recall when you reported the sexual assault to the police?), and factors related to their decisions not to pursue charges (What impacted your decision not to pursue charges for the sexual assault?). In addition to the interviews, a demographic questionnaire was facilitated by the research team and completed by participants after the interviews. Following each interview, participants were provided with an honorarium as a token of appreciation for their time. In addition, a list of support services available in the community was provided to participants if they felt they required additional support. The university institutional research ethics board approved all study protocols.
All interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were entered into NVIVO version 11 for analysis. Colaizzi’s (1978) seven-step analytic method was used as a means of organizing and analyzing the data. This approach included an extensive review of transcribed data, extraction of significant phrases, a constant comparative method, and a comprehensive thematic description of the accounts of participants by three study team members (J.M, L.C, A.M). A third study team member (K.M) reviewed all themes and data collected within each theme to verify the findings. Discussion occurred between the research team members to ensure the interpretation of findings was accurately analyzed; no changes to the original thematic analysis were deemed necessary. Consistent with Colaizzi’s (1978) analytical step of verification of findings, the research team subsequently contacted the participants via e-mail to offer the opportunity to review the thematic findings and contribute any changes. Feedback was attained from three participants and the themes were verified as presented.
Findings
Sample
The self-identified sample was representative of the geographic location of the research and included participants with a diverse age range, educational status, sexual orientation, and marital status. The sample of participants interviewed were all female and ranged in age from 20 to 44 at the time of the interview. The age at the time of the assault ranged from 13 to 39. See Table 1 for participant demographics and Table 2 for Characteristics of the Assault.
Participant Characteristics.
Sexual Assault Characteristics and Health Outcomes.
Thematic analysis of the women’s interviews revealed three themes related to the decision not to pursue charges of sexual assault after reporting to the police, and a fourth theme that describes the overall essence of the decision-making process. These included: (1) Overwhelming Police Process: Who’s on Trial Anyway? (2) Police Communication about Charging/Process: I Didn’t Ask for Your Opinion, (3) Loss of Faith in the Justice System: Too much risk, not enough reward, and (4) No Hope: There’s no point. Within the theme of Police Communication about Charging/Process, a sub-theme emerged regarding Misinformation about the Justice System. Each of the themes are represented by direct quotes from participants in the research and followed with a participant number to reflect who is speaking.
Overwhelming Police Process: Who’s on Trial Anyway?
The experience of sexual assault consumed the survivor’s thoughts and was overwhelming to cope with. When they reported to the police, there was a sense of urgency to be heard and supported, however, the process reinforced, rather than alleviated, feelings of being overwhelmed and distressed. From the initial report until the moment they decided not to proceed with charges, women felt a fundamental lack of support, and often even basic kindness, from police. The initial police response had a dramatic impact on participants’ decisions to proceed with charges. All of the women made a police report of the sexual assault in hopes of alleviating some of the burden they were carrying from victimization and to ultimately hold the perpetrator accountable. “It had gone from, I am going to talk about it and I will be able to get help and move on, to I wish I didn’t do it, and if there was a way I could take it back, I would” (107). All of the women indicated that their expectations did not meet the reality of the police response.
The investigative process was described as unsupportive and exhausting. Several participants noted the length of time it took for police officers to proceed through the investigation and how these delays impacted their decision not to proceed. “The longer time goes on, people’s memories fade, witnesses, either become deceased or they have moved on and may not be able to be located” (105). “I was sick of battling it, I just wanted to heal from it” (101). The exhaustion and overwhelming nature of the process took a toll on women whereby they had to make a choice to either withdraw charges and move on with their lives, or continue to fight for justice through considerable delays, a sense of doubt, and a lack of support. Not only did women feel unsupported in the process of reporting, but they also felt that officers were not reaching out to help them move forward:
I didn’t feel pressured to continue with the case. I don’t know if that makes sense. Like nobody ever came to find me saying you know you should actually do this. This is important. This is something that needs to be done. Like, no cop came. No social workers came; nothing. It was just, I didn’t go back, that was it, it was done. (100)
This lack of support left participants with a sense of defeat, shame, and self-blame that influenced their decisions to discontinue the process.
Throughout the reporting process, participants described feeling as though they were being interrogated rather than supported. The feeling of interrogation influenced a sense that they were not believed which was the impetus for some participants to withdraw their reports and not proceed with charges. The perceived disbelief was based on facial expressions and body language of the officers, intimidation and blame for circumstances, and the focus on the victim rather than the perpetrator. A participant who contacted the police immediately after the sexual assault, described the moment she made the decision that she would not proceed with the charges:
I had a knot in my stomach. I just felt like I wanted to vomit because I was feeling very uneasy around them [police] and their body language, their facial reactions made me realize they don’t believe a thing I am saying and they are against me. Then, they asked, did he pay you? I was like yeah, he came back and threw money at me, but I told him I don’t want your fucking money. They [police] were like, well, he paid you; it was an exchange for service. I was like are you kidding me? I did not ask to be raped. He paid me money for the massage that I did. Not for raping me! (103)
Participants felt responsible for investigating assaults on their own to provide the evidence that was required to shift the blame from themselves to the perpetrator. A participant who was sexually assaulted by a “friend” after a night of drinking at a bar described her sense of responsibility to provide evidence in order to be believed:
He [police officer] could have gone through the U-driver, the bartenders who cut me off, you know, there were a lot of people that I encountered through that night. They could have talked to my best friend who waited for me for one and a half hours at my house when I wasn’t there. Like there were so many things I felt like they could have really pushed. (101)
When the police did not follow up on the potential evidence, the participant reluctantly decided not to pursue charges as she felt she would not be believed. All of these aspects of the police investigation became too overwhelming for survivors who were already struggling with trauma. The approach of the officers combined with trauma and lack of support made following through with potential charges seem insurmountable.
Police Communication about Charging/Process: I Didn’t Ask for Your Opinion
Many participants disclosed that reporting to the police was an intimidating experience and communication from the police often exacerbated their fears of coming forward. Some participants described the verbal and non-verbal police response as unprofessional. This included reactions such as laughing at the victim’s account, touching the victim’s hair, negative body language, accusations that the victim should not have put themselves in the situation they were in, and not allowing family members to be present during questioning. During the investigation, they anticipated difficult questions from the police, however, many participants indicated that the questions were accusatory or blaming, and the focus appeared to be on the survivor and their choices and behavior as opposed to the alleged perpetrator; “you don’t feel like it’s about the situation; it’s about you and what you have done to get yourself into this” (102). Participants expressed that the perceived accusatory nature of the investigation made them feel as if they were responsible for the sexual assault, as though they should have prevented it from happening. One woman who was impregnated as a result of the sexual assault described the focus of the police on the character of the perpetrator as a reason the case would not be successful. She stated:
I am telling you [police] what happened, I need you to tell me what I can do. Nobody could tell me what I could do, because all they would tell me was, well we know him, he works in our community, and we don’t see him being this kind of person, so? [Your case] isn’t going to go anywhere. (107)
Despite carrying a fetus from the sexual assault, which is evidence intercourse had occurred, the woman withdrew her report based on the way police communicated with her which she described as unsupportive and dismissive. A participant who was drugged and violently sexually assaulted by her partner described feeling revictimized by the police:
You know when you come with something so huge that has already robbed you of being a human being right, and then you go to get help with the people that you thought were supposed to protect you and take you seriously and they re-rob you again. You have some degree of a voice before you go to them; you know, you open up this box and you go to the police and that’s where you are supposed to be able to project this voice to be validated. So, when you go to the police and they do what they did with my case, it is removed, they literally steal that, and that’s how it feels. (106)
For many participants, opinions of police officers stopped them from moving forward with pursuing charges. Although the role of the police was perceived to be investigative in nature, participants overwhelmingly indicated that the police appeared to formulate an opinion of the sexual assault prior to initiating an investigation. “It felt like he was very opinionated and kind of biased” (102). Women expressed that if the police were so quick to form an opinion, it wasn’t worth their energy to proceed further. Participants recalled opinions from police such as infidelity prompting the report, false reporting, over-consumption of alcohol, wearing inappropriate and suggestive clothing, and having consensual sex. One woman who was violently raped after being given the date rape drug recalled the initial police reaction, “I remember her looking into the window of the car at the driver’s side, and she looked at me and said, you don’t look too raped” (104). Another participant who was sexually assaulted after an evening of drinking with some friends described her confusion with the police communication, “he said he believes that I was violated, but then he’s calling it consensual. I’m like what does it mean to be consensually-violated or non-consensually violated?” (008). Furthermore, a participant who described using all of her energy to maintain her composure during the police report explained the response of the police officers:
He told me that if they looked into this further and found that there was no evidence and that if they thought that I was putting in a false claim, that I could be fined. He essentially implied that he thought I had cheated on my boyfriend and didn’t want to be caught. (109)
Participants described a sense of defeat when police officers disclosed their opinions, which lead them to withdraw their reports. “I just wanted it to go away, like I just wanted to forget it and move on” (109); “it was too exhausting, it wasn’t worth it” (106). All women went to the police to report the assault in hopes of attaining justice, however, they learned through the communication that justice may not be served. For example, one woman recalled how the opinions of the police influenced her decision to give up, “They had said that we can go to court, but you are still going to lose, so it’s really to a point of if you want to you can; but nothing is going to happen for you” (107). Participants recalled police officers stating things such as “I can continue to fight for a case, but I would be better off walking away” (107), “it wasn’t worth pursuing” (110). Ultimately, many participants perceived that police officers were discouraging them from moving forward with pursuing charges. They stated that they felt officers were trying to scare them out of pressing charges, and made them feel like it wasn’t worth it for them to continue as they were unlikely to have the outcome they hoped for. This communication precipitated shame and embarrassment for participants and lead to self-blame for putting themselves in a vulnerable position, and for bringing the report forward to the police. One participant expressed how she felt things would be different if the police were encouraging instead of discouraging throughout the process, “I think I would have pursued it. I think having encouragement and guidance and comfort even from a stranger would have kept me motivated to pursue the charge, but that didn’t happen” (102).
Although many women perceived disbelief from the police officers, others described the response of the police officers as well-intentioned. Some participants indicated they believed police officers were providing them with advice to prevent them from a painful experience with the justice system. Nevertheless, even the well-intended advice of police officers was perceived as premature and highly influential in their decision-making process. In essence, police were providing their assumptions of case outcomes and process issues prior to gathering evidence and charging the perpetrator. A participant who was sexually and physically assaulted by her boyfriend and subsequently conceived a child, described the response of the police officer who indicated that she was better off pursuing custody issues rather than sexual assault charges:
I just remember him [police officer] saying that the crown is willing to pursue it, but that it’s he said she said. I have no proof; too much time has gone on, and it likely won’t go anywhere and I am going to cause more stress on myself. He knew that we were currently in a custody battle and such, so he just really downplayed it. (110)
Regardless of the intention of the police officers, it is clear that their communication to survivors greatly impacted their willingness to continue to seek justice for sexual victimization.
Misinformation about the Justice System
Other participants felt that they were misinformed about the court process by the police during the disclosure. For example, some women were advised by the police that they needed witnesses in order for the perpetrator to be brought to justice, while others were advised that the perpetrator would likely not be convicted because they were involved in a consenting relationship. Many participants were advised that they would need to be present in the court room to face the perpetrator directly. This caused considerable concerns for women who feared for their safety. For example, a woman who was drugged by a stranger at a party and subsequently sexually assaulted indicated that her decision to withdraw her sexual assault report was based on the misinformation provided by the police:
The police and the court told me that I would have to testify on the stand against him and he would have to be there. I told them I wasn’t comfortable being in that room. And I was aware that I could do a video, but that option was never presented to me for an option in the court room. (104)
The information from the police regarding facing the perpetrator in the court room was a deterrent for many women in continuing with their initial reports, “they told me that I had to testify with him there, and I wasn’t willing to do that, it’s not fair” (101). The thought of having to face the perpetrator in court incited fear for the safety of participants and resulted in a lack of faith in the justice system to protect the victim. Many women disclosed fear that perpetrators would hold them accountable for case outcomes and therefore physically hurt them or even kill them. A participant who felt that the police expected her to produce more evidence before they would take her report seriously disclosed the impact that facing the perpetrator in court had on her decision to withdraw her report:
Well if I can’t find anybody that can help me, then clearly there was no point coming here and doing all of this for nothing. I am most likely going to end up with him beating me half to death when it is over (107).
Loss of Faith in the Justice System:Too Much Risk, Not Enough Reward
Whether interactions with the police were perceived as attempts to help shield the victim from a difficult court process, or if the police did not believe the victim’s account, the information imparted by the police altered survivors’ faith in the justice system and influenced the decision of participants to withdraw police reports. One woman described how she felt the justice system was failing the victim:
I think our justice system is just flawed to the point where it is like if you don’t have enough evidence or if you don’t believe the victim, or if your story doesn’t add up, or if there are holes in your stories, and if you go through any traumatic events there are going to be holes in your stories, then like, they aren’t going to help, and it’s like why? (100)
Many participants linked the disbelief from the police with a flawed justice system since the police are responsible for bringing the investigation forward to the prosecutor. Women also disclosed that the lack of understanding of the experience of trauma from both the police and the court system influenced their decisions to withdraw their police reports. They stated that the need for the victim to produce evidence to avoid a “he-said, she-said” situation prompted their lack of faith in the justice system:
I wasn’t prepared to go on the stand because when they plead not-guilty you go to trial and you have to go on the stand and speak your truths and everything has to add up. And if there is an iota of it sounding like it can’t be real, if there is the tiniest, tiniest discrepancy in anything, they look at it like, well there is that one little thing now so we can’t do this to this person [perpetrator]. (102)
For the few women who proceeded to the initial court date only to withdraw the report before the process began, a lack of support through the process from police and others influenced their decision not to proceed. For example, one woman disclosed withdrawing her police report immediately after attending the courthouse when she saw police officers supporting the perpetrator, “I was very scared. The people that I was charging had a lot of people. Even the cops were standing with them” (111). These experiences led to the perception that the court system is flawed, that perpetrators are ultimately not held accountable for their actions, and that victims are re-victimized. One participant summed up the factors that influenced her decision to withdraw her police report, “my interpretation is that the perpetrator has more rights, and the victim is re-victimized, and the outcome of the justice system isn’t like the punishment necessarily suits the crime” (104).
When reflecting on the experience of making the police report and waiting for the court process to begin, participants expressed feelings of defeat prior to the commencement of the court process. They made statements such as, “is it worth it to go through all that trauma for them to only serve 3 or 6 months in jail?” (104) or “I need to let go and move on with my life” (107). There was a sense that despite the accuracy of their reports, the process of the criminal justice system from report to court decision would be too overwhelming and time-consuming for them to continue. They expressed a sense of “too many risks and not enough reward.” For instance, one woman who was sexually assaulted in her apartment building by another resident disclosed her feelings of defeat before she declined to proceed through the court process, “it is such a long process and it eats up your whole life” (102). These defeating thoughts were perpetuated by the depiction of rape cases in the media, “if people are going to call her story consensual [a rape case in the news] where she is being stitched up because she was so violently raped, how the hell would anyone call mine non-consensual, you know what I mean?” (008). Despite the initial goal of bringing the perpetrator to justice, it is evident that information provided about the court process shook women’s faith in the criminal justice system and provided the rationale to withdraw their original reports from the police.
No Hope: There’s No Point
Overwhelmingly, participants indicated that throughout the process of reporting to the police, they perceived that there was no hope that justice would be achieved. They stated that they felt discouraged, demoralized, invalidated, and exhausted. Although they went to the police with the full intention of seeing the process through from charges to conviction, the experience with the police and the communication they received prompted their decision to “give up” and carry on with their lives. A sense of lost hope existed through the disclosure process, the police communication about courts and the justice system, resulting in a loss of faith in the justice system and thereby making the theme of no hope the overall essence of participants’ decisions to withdraw police reports before any charges were laid. Participants stated, “I decided to withdraw because I just felt demoralized” (110), and “at the end of the day, I thought I am going to lose anyway” (101). One participant who approached the police with a sexual assault report and left weighing her options to follow through, summed up her thoughts when she lost hope that her case would have a successful outcome:
If I haven’t even hit the court room and that’s the sort of advice that I am being given, you are like a lamb on shaky legs trying to move forward. It doesn’t feel like you would be successful, and you are just putting yourself more in harm’s way more than anything else. (105)
Throughout the police process, participants were not able to pursue the justice they hoped for following the trauma of a sexual assault. Instead of support, they felt discouraged from continuing and thereby were left to deal with the traumatic outcomes of the sexual assault independently. Beyond the criminal justice system, there was no further hope that justice would be attained.
Discussion
This study contributes to existing sexual assault literature through exploration of survivors’ direct accounts of withdrawing their report with the police following their disclosure of sexual assault. The voices of survivors add important contextual understanding of the experience of disclosure and the decisions by survivors to discontinue with the process before the investigation unfolds. Survivors decisions to withdraw their report is important as the existing literature on case attrition to date reflects rationalization for attrition from the perspective of police officers when survivors “fail to cooperate” with the investigation (Murphy et al., 2014). As police officers may be unaware of the impact their interview approach has on secondary victimization and subsequent decision to withdraw, rationalizations for attrition from police in the absence of survivors may misrepresent survivor’s experience.
Participants in this research made a sexual assault report to the police in hopes of attaining support for traumatic victimization and holding perpetrators accountable. Instead, survivors identified pivotal moments during the disclosure whereby they reluctantly made the decision not to proceed with their report as they felt there was no hope that justice would be served. This sense of hopelessness was based on an overwhelming and exhausting police process, police communication that was perceived as blaming and dismissive, premature judgments from police regarding case outcomes, and ultimately an unfair criminal justice system whereby the “punishment” does not fit the crime. The negative disclosure experience with police officers and subsequent decision to withdraw sexual assault reports is consistent with existing literature on the impact of secondary victimization on survivor well-being. Secondary victimization refers to survivors’ feeling of a “second rape” when the response they receive is blaming, dismissive, and hurtful (Patterson, 2011b). Yet, existing literature often reflects the impact of secondary victimization on survivors who have proceeded with the investigation and does not reflect how this disclosure experience may prompt survivors to withdraw their report. Survivors in the current study withdrew their report prior to receiving justice for victimization, supported by police or referral to external agencies for psychological support, and thereby independently managed their experience of trauma. These are noteworthy findings given the importance of the disclosure experience.
The disclosure process is critical for both the investigative process and recovery for sexual assault survivors (Haskell & Randall, 2019). Negative reactions to disclosures including perceived blame and skepticism (Ahrens & Aldana, 2012; Bordere, 2017; Rich, 2019; Ullman & Peter-Hagene, 2014) can be harmful to survivors’ well-being and result in decreased disclosure, as a means of self-preservation (Haskell & Randall, 2019). Conversely, positive, validating and empathic interactions during disclosure improves the health and well-being of survivors, enhances their sense of control (Ullman & Peter-Hagene, 2014), and facilitates the retelling of the events of the assault (Haskell & Randall, 2019). This is important as the quality of communication between the survivor and the police officer is essential in the development of the case. In addition, the survivor’s detailed account of events greatly impacts prosecutorial outcomes (Patterson, 2011a).
Participants in this research experienced negative reactions from the police including blame, doubt, disbelief, and premature assumptions regarding unsuccessful case outcomes. These responses are often associated with ascription to rape myths (Quinlan, 2016; Rich & Seffrin, 2012) which are described as deeply entrenched societal perceptions of what constitutes a “real rape” (Quinlan, 2016). These myths are often associated with the credibility of the victim. (Parratt & Pina, 2017; Patterson, 2011a). Police acceptance of rape myths often prohibits justice in sexual assault cases (Sleath & Bull, 2012; Venema, 2014). Sexual assault cases are more likely to be referred to the prosecution based on the perceived seriousness of the crime including the presence of evidence, physical injury, and the use of a weapon (Wentz & Keimig, 2019). Rape myths shift the blame from the perpetrator to the victim and are often categorized into narratives such as, “she asked for it” or “it wasn’t really rape” (Grubb & Turner, 2012, p. 445).
Of great concern, survivors’ traumatic response to sexual assault is often misinterpreted as unreliability, thereby influencing police perception of decreased credibility (Quinlan, 2016; Rich, 2019). In the present study, participants’ feelings of self-blame and lack of hope following their interaction with the police ultimately influenced their decision to withdraw their report and may reflect the influence of secondary victimization among survivors who had negative experiences with police officers. This is consistent with findings that negative interactions with the police during disclosure increased survivors’ feelings of hopelessness (Greeson et al., 2016) and revictimization (Patterson, 2011b). As such, it is essential that police officers develop an understanding of the clinical presentation of trauma during disclosures and approach survivors from a neutral and trauma-informed position (Haskell & Randall, 2019) to encourage survivors’ ongoing participation in the investigative process.
Police often make decisions in sexual assault cases based on factors associated with successful case outcomes prior to referring cases to the prosecution (Wentz & Keimig, 2019). Further, lack of involvement with the investigation or withdrawal of the report inevitably ensures that the case will not proceed (Wentz & Keimig, 2019). Although many survivors perceived that police lacked empathy and approached the report with skepticism, some survivors noted that police were well-intentioned in “warning” them of the probability of an unsuccessful case outcome prior to an investigation. This is consistent with research regarding police officer’s overt or subtle messaging to survivors who do not conform to the stereotypical “real rape victim” that their cases will be difficult to prove in court and come at a personal cost to the victim (Kerstetter, 1990, in Spohn & Tellis, 2012). The “warning” from police may be a strategy used to influence survivors’ decision to withdraw their case as evidence suggests that some police officers use aggressive techniques designed to encourage survivors to recant their reports (Spohn et al., 2014).
A trauma informed police response during sexual assault disclosures is of critical importance to support survivors, improve the investigative process, and ultimately hold perpetrators accountable for victimization (Haskell & Randall, 2019; Lonsway et al., 2019; Westera et al., 2016). Furthermore, a compassionate and trauma informed interview increases the survivor’s motivation to continue with the investigative process (Rich, 2019). A lack of understanding of the survivor’s experience of trauma, and how traumatic events have been encoded in memory, may influence misunderstanding from the police during the interview process and ultimately impact police decisions on credibility of the victim and case outcomes (Lonsway et al., 2019). The objectives of a sexual assault interview are twofold. They include creating a safe and comfortable environment for the survivor and facilitating memory recall to improve the investigation (Rich, 2019). Police officers must alter their style of communication from skepticism and interrogation (to a victim-centered) and open-ended interview (Haskell & Randall, 2019; Lathan et al., 2019; Quinlan, 2016; Rich, 2019; Rich & Seffrin, 2012; Westera et al., 2016).
Several trauma informed strategies are recommended for improving the interview and maintaining survivor involvement in the process. These include developing rapport (Haskell & Randall, 2019; Westera et al., 2016), exhibiting empathy and non-judgment (Lathan et al., 2019; Rich, 2019), acknowledging courage and commending the survivor for reaching out, maintaining eye contact at the survivor’s eye level (Rich, 2019), pacing the interview to the survivor’s needs (Haskell & Randall, 2019; Westera et al., 2016), providing the survivor with control throughout the process, ensuring a confidential environment, addressing contradictions as clarifications rather than disbelief (Rich, 2019; Rich & Seffrin, 2012), exhibiting emotional competency (Haskell & Randall, 2019), using open-ended questions, and avoiding interruptions (Lathan et al., 2019; Rich, 2019; Westera et al., 2016). These strategies are more likely to improve survivors’ memories, thereby improving the quality of the interview, and maintain survivors’ involvement in the criminal justice process (Rich, 2019). Kelley and Campbell (2013) found that police officers who invested moderate to a great deal of effort in the investigative process were more likely to maintain survivors’ involvement in the criminal justice system. In order to ensure that survivors participate fully in the interview and investigation, police officers must treat them with dignity and respect while recognizing the impact that trauma has had on their ability to allow themselves to be vulnerable to law enforcement (Haskell & Randall, 2019).
Limitations
This study contributes insight into the direct accounts of female survivors of sexual assault who withdrew their reports from the police following disclosure, yet it is not without limitations. The research omits those who experienced attrition as a result of police decision not to pursue charges. In addition, as the current research is not a comparative study, the role of race in attrition of sexual assault cases was not explored and is an important area for future research. Moreover, the research was conducted in a mid-sized Canadian city and surrounding area, and thereby may not be generalizable to different geographical locations. In addition, given the geographic context and limited police resources, it is unlikely that the officers who responded to the sexual assault received specialized training in sexual assault interviewing or belonged to a special investigation unit. Furthermore, given the exploration of the accounts of survivors, the data is limited to the viewpoint of the participants and omits the interpretation of the responding officer. Although appropriate for an exploratory study, the sample size is relatively small. Yet, the sample is representative of the cultural context of the geographic location of the interviews as the population is predominately comprised of Caucasian and Indigenous individuals (First Nations, Metis, Inuit). As Indigenous women comprise 50% of study participants their experiences of sexual assault case attrition may be influenced by their racial identity and requires further exploration. Therefore, the findings may not be generalizable and do not reflect diverse cultural groups who may experience sexual assault disclosure and subsequent decision-making differently than the current sample. In addition, the sample did not include men and only a minority of participants identified as a sexual or gender minority. Nonetheless, the study provides important insight into rationale for the decision to withdraw a report of sexual assault following disclosure to the police. Future research should explore the unique sexual assault disclosure experiences of men, sexual and gender minorities, and diverse cultural groups to increase understanding of the decision-making process of such groups, and their needs following sexual assault.
Conclusion
The first-hand accounts of sexual assault survivors provide insight into women’s decision to withdraw their report from the police and ultimately discontinue involvement with the criminal justice system. These findings provide important awareness of the disclosure experience and the power of police communication and approach when receiving a report of sexual assault. The accounts of survivors demonstrate the needs of survivors following a traumatic event. Efforts to improve the disclosure experience of sexual assault survivors are required to ensure that the disclosure occurs in a place of comfort and safety, and that communication is perceived as supportive. A trauma-informed police response to sexual assault disclosures may decrease attrition and improve justice for victims of sexual assault.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
Our research team would like to thank Kailee Biloski for her contributions to this study.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: SSHRC Insight Development Grant: #1466362.
Ethics Approval
Research Ethics Board approval was attained through Lakehead University’s REB committee.
