Understanding the Criminal Act of Rape through the Social Strain Theory.
Introduction
As a developing criminologist, the need to conduct ongoing studies of criminal acts such as rape and seek to qualify the deviant behaviour through criminal theories such as strain theory, ensures relevancy. With the 2015 Australian Bureau of Statistics report noting that
“the number of reported sexual assault victims increased for the third consecutive year, up 3% since 2013 to 20,677 victims [and] females making up 83% of sexual assault victims in 2014”
it is clear that this type of violent crime is escalating. The opportunity to examine the act of rape in conjunction with strain theory, drawing on empirical studies, theoretical research articles, and personal narratives will provide depth, scope, validity, and a greater understanding of this type of deviant behaviour.
Analysis
In providing a foundational definition of rape for the purposes of this study, Egan and Wilson’s (2012) acknowledge the act as usually involving sexual intercourse or other forms of penetration against a person’s consent. The act of rape can be carried out through the use of physical force, abuse by an authority figure, coercion, individuals incapable of providing consent or have a mental disorder the precludes consent. The social significance of this type of violent sexual acts for criminologists is that while the reported statistics are shocking, what is of equal concern is the number of cases that continue to go unreported. In the study conducted by Eagan and Wilson (2012) involving 36 participants, all who had been raped, the qualitative inquiry determined that only half had reported the crime to law enforcement. The results of the study highlighted the use of the quantitative analysis of six scales, drawing data on rape myth acceptance, just world beliefs, attitudes towards the police, locus of control, the pro-victim scale and the anti-rapist scale (Eagan & Wilson, 2012, p. 345). The discussion in the study provided valuable insight on how rape effects victims, where the guilt and shame is internalized, resulting in the crime going unreported to avoid the assignment of social stigmas.
The violent act of rape is further explored in a systematic review of rape victims as opposed to rape survivors, where Hocketta and Saucierb (2015) gathered personal narratives from survivors, seeking to qualify the difference. With this data, understanding how rape and victims of these acts are perceived in society, where the statistics identify a significant social problem, acknowledge the importance of words in qualifying a criminal act. What was illuminating is that the comparisons of framing, drawing out different conceptualizations by society highlighting that the idea of rape survivors offered perceptions related to resistance while victims held some accountability or responsibility in the violent act that was committed on them. It is hard to fathom the distinction when both the participant groups survived, with the violent sexual acts experienced by these individuals being similar in nature; however, what is most notable in this research is the idea of victim empowerment. The fact that society through minor syntax adjustments is willing to assign some blame and responsibility to the victim, suggests the need for the re-education of the public on the violent aspects of rape (Hocketta & Saucierb, 2015).
With theoretical research offered by Mardorossian (2002), seeking to redefine a new feminist theory of rape, broadening traditional definitions and drawing on culture and societal variables, what is central to the new approaches is an understanding of the crude connections and exercises to the power dynamics of the violent act. To achieve this purpose, enhanced understandings of traditional research categories of rape which include: gender, ethnicity, age, geographical location, historical periods and cultures must be broadened and continually updated, allowing for changes in societal norms. Additional research categories seek to qualify perpetrator and victim relationships and the contextual nature of where and when the rape occurred, feeding the following classification categories: gang rape, date rape, marital rape, child sex abuse, statutory rape, acquaintance rape, war rape, and prison rape.
What is highlighted as a concern is the variety of categories of different types of rape, which present a conundrum, acknowledging a need for the accounting of demographic and environmental variables, which for some criminologists and social researchers have focused their primary attention on the contributing variables, while failing to fully explore the variables associated with the act of rape. The research argues that the dispersal of the categories mitigates the act itself, where the focus needs to remain, however, without investigating contributing variables; the counter-argument is that the research would lose its currency into this social phenomenon (Mardorossian, 2002).
What is offered as a key note by Rocque (2008) is that just as this theory has evolved over time, being revised by prominent social and criminal researchers of their period, what is essential to acknowledge is the historical context in which a crime is studied. The transactional exchange between ST and rape, drawing on historical figures and the evolution of societal norms is argued to allow criminologists a greater degree of understanding the contemporary variables supporting a criminal act. For example, the short skits of the 1990’s were argued in many rape trials of that decade as a contributing factor, where in the 1960’s, clothing would not have been considered as a possible contributing variable to the commission of a rape. As a result, the utilization of ST calls for due diligence in retaining currency with societal trends, shifts, and norms to effectively understand the ongoing evolution of the criminal act of rape (Rocque, 2008).
As causes such as the feminist movement have sought to benefit from the adoption of the strain theory in an effort to reawaken and education the general public on the criminal act of rape, what is expected is a subsequent reduction in the number of reported acts. In following Hefley’s (2006) integration of ST and feminist theories to explain two rape outcomes which highlight
“past sexually coercive behaviours of males and the propensity of males to rape where strain is conceptualized as rape-specific and measured in three different ways: threats to masculine status, dissatisfaction with amount of sexual intercourse, and perceived unjust thwarted attempts at sexual intercourse” (Hefley, 2006, p. 7).
These hypotheses were challenged through a closed ended survey delivered to 298 males engaged in seven different introductory sociology courses throughout the United States (US). The results acknowledged four emerging variables connecting ST with rape, which included the following: minority status, rape myth acceptance, negative emotional effect, and coping strategies, post-incident. In moving forward, the research calls for additional feminist applications and interactions between ST, focusing on emotional effects of perpetrator and victim rather than researchers continuing to focus solely on anger variables in an effort to further understand the criminal act of rape (Hefley, 2006).
In a dynamic approach to understanding the precursors to rape and societal variables, accounting for strain, research conducted by Strain, Hockett, and Saucier, (2015) sought to qualify pressuring behaviours and rape proclivity. The empirical data gathered was drawn from measurements of participant attitudes and normative beliefs addressing two behaviours which are symptomatic of rape cultures. As a criminal act, the researchers conceptualized the violence which contributed to the rape existing on a continuum defined by two types of behaviours. The research indicated that these were potential antecedents or consequences of social strain, attributing to the violence associated with the rape and identified as two key variables, attempts to pressure, and benevolent dating behaviours, where the research acknowledged that men routinely initiate sexual behaviour. What is unique about this research is where the line is drawn and essentially when “no really” means “no” and the ability for the individual to accept the decision by the perspective sexual partner. As the research explored boundaries, lines, and social and sexual norms of women who had been raped, what is called for is the need to expand future studies in an effort to changes in acceptable dating scripts, dating behaviours, and empowering individuals to avoid dangerous situations that can put them in a position to be raped (Strain, et al., 2015).
The power and control variables associated with the commission of the act of rape calls for additional understanding of those who are committing the acts. As Nicole and Sealock, (2000) examined offender populations, applying ST, 150 youth participants acknowledged key variables, promoting the need for future study. The variables most commonly associated with the commission of rape, promoted by societal strain was anger, rage, power, and control. The study highlighted the need for ongoing education and intervention of societal youth, where this lack of oversight and the marginalization of societal norms, with sexual activity now prevalent in every day society, children have become confused. The inability for society to essentially police itself and promote clear boundaries as to what is acceptable sexual behaviour, with governments, teachers, and parents challenging social media and general media depictions of sex and sexuality can only serve to reduce the commission of the act of rape. The lack of oversight and education is contributing to the strain and the commission of these types of violent crimes, and without societal revision, it can be expected that the number of reported and unreported rates will continue to climb (Nicole & Sealock, 2000).
As calls by sociologists and researchers go out to revise ST and/or integrate the concepts into developing theories such as general strain theory of deviance (GSTD), what is explored is an enhanced understanding of violent acts such as rape through assessment of serious social strains facing males and females in society. As Kaufman (2009), calls for ongoing study into the externalization and internalization of negative emotions while accounting for multiple gendered deviant outcomes, the expectation is that a series of rehabilitation models will result in responding to GTSD variables. These models will address strains contributing to violent crimes such as rape, allowing for intervention and rehabilitation to address the strain which is escalating the deviant behaviour. What becomes clear for the criminologist are the interconnections between strain, education, prevention, possible rehabilitation, and the commission of rape, where the body of this research appears to continually be searching for answers, which is a positive aspect of this field of study. However, as the theories evolve, societal norms, challenges, expectations, and strains change, violent acts such as rape unfortunately do not have an end or a finish line, yet. The proactive models seeking to assist offenders are a step in the right direction, with calls for additional study and empirical review are consistent with the previous research (Kaufman, 2009).
In contrasting ST with labelling theory and the commission of rape, a study conducted by Adams (1996), suggested that “components from two theories-labeling and differential associations-should be incorporated into a general social learning perspective of crime and deviance” (p. 147). The large scale study, where data was collected through a US national youth survey involving 1725 participants tested a 24-item delinquency index, where the recommendations highlighted the effects of strain and the need for ST revision. While the review of the research does not suggest discarding labelling theory as a general premise for understanding deviant social behaviour and crimes, what the outcomes do suggest is that it is incomplete and by itself, does not adequately qualify contributing variables to significant crimes such as rape. Additional convergences between ST and other theories such as biological determinism support integration, while falling short of expectations. In supporting this shortfall, research conducted by Dingwall, Nerlich, and Hillyard, (2003) note that while
“having demonstrated a biological basis for elements of human behaviour [the theory offers a] seriously flawed by their misunderstandings of nature, culture, and social interaction, leading to the adoption of an inappropriate realist epistemology” (p. 634).
The ongoing development of ST should remain a priority for criminologists as the primary for understanding violent crimes such as rape.
Conclusion
In looking towards the future as a criminologist, the application for a large grant to develop a series of pilot programs spread out across Australia to develop youth, young adult, and adult profiles, identifying key strains that are related to the commission of rape would support a national intervention upon the conclusion of the study. By using ST as a benchmark and engaging a diverse, purposeful sample, from youths, young adults, and adults, in environments such as prisons, juvenile detention facilities, elementary schools, college campuses, and professional environments, what will result is the accurate identification of existing and emerging strains that will be correlated to the theory and the crime. By offering tutorials, seminars, and workshops that educate the appropriate population, while assisting the participants in controlling deviant urges, its secondary benefits would be that it would support general reductions in criminal activity beyond addressing the primary goal of reducing the number of reported and unreported rapes.
References
Ackermana, A.R., Sacksb, M. (2012, June). Can general strain theory be used to explain
recidivism among registered sex offenders? Journal of Criminal Justice, 40(3), 187–193.
Adams, M. S. (1996). Labeling and Differential Association: Towards a General Social Learning
Theory of Crime and Deviance. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 20(2), 147–164.
Aseltine, R.H., Gore, S., & Gordon, J. (2000). Life stress, anger and anxiety, and delinquency:
An empirical test of general strain theory. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 41(3),
256–75.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2015, July 22). 4510.0 — Recorded Crime — Victims, Australia,
2014. Retrieved from http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/4510.0
Christiansen, D., M.Sc, Bak, R., M.Sc, & Elklit, A., M.Sc. (2012). Secondary victims of rape.
Violence and Victims, 27(2), 246–62.
Dingwall, R., Nerlich, B., & Hillyard, S. (2003). Biological determinism and symbolic
interaction: Hereditary streams and cultural roads. Symbolic Interaction, 26(4), 631–644.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/si.2003.26.4.631
Egan, R., & Wilson, J. C. (2012). Rape Victims’ Attitudes to Rape Myth Acceptance. Psychiatry,
Psychology & Law, 19(3), 345–357. doi:10.1080/13218719.2011.585128
Hefley, K. S. (2006). Combining general strain theory with feminist theories to explain rape
(Order No. 3205496). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.
(305303221).
Hocketta, J.M., Saucierb, D.A. (2015, December). A systematic literature review of “rape
victims” versus “rape survivors”: Implications for theory, research, and practice.
Aggression and Violent Behavior, 25, 1–14.
Kaufman, J. M. (2009). Gendered Responses to Serious Strain: The Argument for a General
Strain Theory of Deviance. JQ: Justice Quarterly, 26(3), 410–444.
doi:10.1080/07418820802427866
Mardorossian, C. M. (2002). Toward a New Feminist Theory of Rape. Signs: Journal of Women
In Culture & Society, 27(3), 743.
Nicole, L. P., & Sealock, M. D. (2000). Generalizing general strain theory: An examination of an
offending population. Justice Quarterly: JQ, 17(3), 449–484.
Rocque, M. (2008). Strain, coping mechanisms, and slavery: A general strain theory application.
Crime, Law and Social Change, 49(4), 245–269. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10611-
008–9106–8
Strain, M. L., PhD., Hockett, J. M., PhD., & Saucier, D. A., PhD. (2015). Precursors to rape:
Pressuring behaviors and rape proclivity. Violence and Victims, 30(2), 322–341. k_ok
