Journal of Quantitative Criminology

, Volume 24, Issue 2, pp 205–226 | Cite as

Rape Co-occurrence: Do Additional Crimes Affect Victim Reporting and Police Clearance of Rape?

Original Paper

Abstract

Despite the increased research attention given to rape and violence against women, little is known about rape co-occurrence, or rape incidents that involve another crime. Although previous research has found certain incident characteristics increase the likelihood that a victim reports her rape to police and that the offender is arrested and prosecuted, the relationship between co-occurrence and these responses is unknown. Given this gap in the literature, the main goal of the present research is to provide an initial understanding of rape co-occurrence and its effect on victim reporting and police clearance. To explore these issues, this study uses two national data sources that collect the requisite incident-level information: the National Crime Victimization Survey and the Uniform Crime Reporting Program’s National Incident-Based Reporting System. Few rapes are found to co-occur with other crimes. When rapes do occur with other crimes, though, they are more likely than solo-occurring rapes to involve weapons, strangers, additional injury to the victim, and multiple offenders. Rapes that co-occur also are more likely to be reported to police and cleared by police than rapes that occur with no other crimes.

Keywords

Victimization Rape Complementarity Measurement Crime statistics 

References

  1. Addington LA (2007) Using NIBRS to study methodological sources of divergence between the UCR and NCVS. In: Lynch JP, Addington LA (eds) Understanding crime statistics: revisiting the divergence of the NCVS and the UCR. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp 225–250Google Scholar
  2. Addington LA (2006) Using NIBRS murder data to evaluate clearance predictors: A research note. Homicide Studies 10:140–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Addington LA (2004) The effect of NIBRS reporting on item missing data in murder cases. Homicide Studies. 8:1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Addington LA, Loftin C, McDowall D (2001) The quality of NIBRS murder data. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Atlanta, GAGoogle Scholar
  5. Allison PD (2002) Missing data. Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CAGoogle Scholar
  6. Bachman R (1993) Predicting the reporting of rape victimization: Have rape reforms made a difference? Crim Justice Behav 20:254–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bachman R (1998) The factors related to rape reporting behavior and arrest: New evidence from the National Crime Victimization Survey. Crim Justice Behav 25:8–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bachman R, Paternoster R (1993) A contemporary look at the effects of rape law reform: How far have we really come? J Crim Law Criminol 84:554–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bachman R, Taylor B (1994) The measurement of family violence and rape by the redesigned National Crime Victimization Survey. Justice Q 22:499–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Baumer E (2002) Neighborhood disadvantage and police notification by victims of violence. Criminology 40:579–616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Baumer EP, Felson RB, Messner SF (2003) Changes in police notification for rape, 1973–2000. Criminology 41:841–872CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Biderman AD, Lynch JP (1991) Understanding crime incidence statistics: why the UCR diverges from the NCS. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Bouffard JA (2000) Predicting type of sexual assault case closure from victim, suspect, and case characteristics. J Crim Justice 28:57–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brownmiller S (1975) Against our will: Men, women, and rape. Fawcett Columbine, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Bureau of Justice Statistics (2005) Criminal victimization in the United States—Statistical tables, 2005 . Retrieved January 20, 2007, from http://ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cvus/cvus05mt.pdf
  16. Bureau of Justice Statistics (2004) Level of participation by states as of December, 2002. Retrieved April 30, 2004, from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/nibrsstatus.htm
  17. Bureau of Justice Statistics (2000) Effects of NIBRS on crime statistics. Retrieved December 18, 2002, from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/enibrscs.pdf
  18. Bureau of Justice Statistics (1997) Implementing the National Incident-Based Reporting System: a project status report. Retrieved December 18, 2002, from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/inibrs.pdf
  19. Burt MR (1998) Rape myths. In: Odem ME, Clay-Warner J (eds) Confronting rape and sexual assault. Scholarly Resources, Inc., Wilmington, DE, pp 129–144Google Scholar
  20. Catalano S (2006) Criminal victimization, 2005. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, NCJ-214644Google Scholar
  21. Clay-Warner J, Burt CH (2005) Rape reporting after reforms: have times really changed? Violence Against Women 11:150–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Deming M, Eppy A (1981) The sociology of rape. Sociol Soc Res 65:357–379Google Scholar
  23. Du Mont J, Miller K, Myhr TL (2003) The role of “real rape” and “real victim” stereotypes in the police reporting practices of sexually assaulted women. Violence Against Women 9:466–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Estrich S (1987) Real rape. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  25. Federal Bureau of Investigation (2004a) National Incident-Based Reporting System, 2002 [Data file]. Complied by the U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. Available from National Archive of Criminal Justice Data website, http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/NACJD
  26. Federal Bureau of Investigation (2004b) Crime in the United States 2003. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  27. Federal Bureau of Investigation (1992) Uniform crime reporting handbook, National Incident-Based Reporting System edition. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  28. Federal Bureau of Investigation (1984) Uniform crime reporting handbook. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  29. Feldman-Summers S, Norris J (1984) Differences between rape victims who report and those who do not report to a public agency. J Appl Soc Psychol 14:562–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gottfredson MR, Gottfredson DM (1980) Decision making in criminal justice: toward the rational exercise of discretion. Ballinger Publishing Company, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  31. Gottfredson MR, Hindelang MJ (1979) A study of the behavior of law. Am Sociol Rev 43:3–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Greenberg MS, Ruback RB (1992) After the crime: victim decision making. Plenum Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  33. Hart TC, Rennison CM (2003) Reporting crime to the police, 1992–2000. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington, DC, NCJ-195710Google Scholar
  34. Hart TC, Rennison CM, Gibson C (2005) Revisiting respondent fatigue bias in the National Crime Victimization Survey. J Quant Criminol 21:345–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hindelang M, Gottfredson M, Garofalo J (1978) Victims of personal crime: an empirical foundation for a theory of personal victimization. Ballinger Publishing Company, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  36. Horney J, Spohn C (1996) The influence of blame and believability factors on the processing of simple versus aggravated rape cases. Criminology 34:135–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S (2000) Applied logistic regression, 2nd edn. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  38. Justice Research and Statistics Association (2006) 25 Largest NIBRS Agencies. IBR Resource Center. http://www.jrsa.org/ibrrc/background-status/top_25.shtml (retrieved January 19, 2007)
  39. Laub JH (1981) Ecological considerations in victim reporting to the police. J Crim Justice 9:419–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lauritsen JL, Schaum R (2001) Social ecology of violence against women. Criminology 42:323–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. LeBeau JL (1987) The journey to rape: Geographic distance and the rapist’s method of approaching the victim. J Police Sci Admini 15:129–136Google Scholar
  42. LeGrand C (1973) Rape and rape laws: Sexism in society. Calif Law Rev 61:919–941CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Levy PS, Lemeshow S (1999) Sampling of populations: methods and applications, 3rd edn. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  44. Lizotte AJ (1985) The uniqueness of rape: Reporting assaultive violence to the police. Crime Delinquency 31:169–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lynch JP, Addington LA (2007) Conclusion. In: Lynch JP, Addington LA (eds) Understanding crime statistics: revisiting the divergence of the NCVS and the UCR. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp 297–334Google Scholar
  46. Madigan L, Gamble NC (1991) The second rape: society’s continued betrayal of the victim. Lexington Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  47. Maltz MD (1999) Bridging gaps in police crime data: a discussion paper from the BJS Fellows Program. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  48. Planty M (2002) Third-party involvement in violent crime, 1993–1999. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington, DC, NCJ-189100Google Scholar
  49. Rand MR, Rennison CM (2005) Bigger is not necessarily better: an analysis of violence against women estimate from the National Crime Victimization Survey and the National Violence Against Women Survey. J Quant Criminol 21:267–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rennison CM (2002) Rape and sexual assault: reporting to the police and medical attention, 1992–2000. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington, DC, NCJ-194530Google Scholar
  51. Rennison CM, Planty M (2003) Nonlethal intimate partner violence: examining race, gender, and income patterns. Violence Vict 18:433–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rennison CM, Rand MR (2007) Introduction to the national crime victimization survey. In: Lynch JP, Addington LA (eds) Understanding crime statistics: revisiting the divergence of the NCVS and the UCR. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp 17–54Google Scholar
  53. Rennison CM, Rand MR (2003) Non-lethal intimate partner violence against women: a comparison of three age cohorts. Violence Against Women 9:1417–1428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sample LL (2006) An examination of the degree to which sex offenders kill. Crim Justice Rev 31:230–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Skogan WG (1977) Dimensions of the dark figure of unreported crime. Crime Delinquency 23:41–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Skogan WG (1984) Reporting crimes to the police: the status of world research. J Res Crime Delinq 21:113–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Spohn C, Beichner D, Davis-Frenzel E (2001) Prosecutorial justifications for sexual assault case rejection: guarding the “gateway to justice”. Soc Probl 48:206–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Tjaden P, Thoennes N (2006) Extent, nature, and consequences of rape victimization: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/210346.pdf (retrieved July 6, 2007)
  59. Tjaden P, Thoennes N (2000) Full report of the prevalence, incidence, and consequences of violence against women: findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/183781.pdf (retrieved July 6, 2007) [NCJ 183781.]
  60. U.S. Department of Justice (2005) U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. National Crime Victimization Survey, 1992–2004 [Computer file]. Conducted by U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. ICPSR ed. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [producer and distributor]Google Scholar
  61. Williams LS (1984) The classic rape: when do victims report? Soc Probl 31:51–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Justice, Law and SocietyAmerican UniversityWashingtonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Criminology and Criminal JusticeUniversity of Missouri-St. LouisSt. LouisUSA

Personalised recommendations