Organizational and racial conflict and maximum-security prisons: by James G. Fox Lexington Books (D.C. Heath and Company, 125 Spring Street, Lexington, Masschusetts 02173), 1982, 191 pp. hardcover— $24.95

Abstract

Definitions of rape have undergone considerable redefinition in terms of both legal status and community perceptions in the past two decades. There has been pressure to criminalize acts of forced sexual intercourse that have not been criminalized in the past. The move to establish different levels of sexual assault and make changes in the nature of admissibility of types of evidence were designed to permit increaased rates of conviction in cases involving offensive sexual behaviour. The most recent development has been the emergence of the concept of date rape. The relative seriousness of date rape as compared with other forms of sexual assault has been debated with no clear resolution of the issue but with a tendency to consider date rape as less than stranger rape in terms of severity and appropriate penalties. One outcome is the ability to obtain convictions in cases in which a jury might not find the offender guilty of a more ‘serious’ form of rape. This is reflected in the new sexual assault statutes adopted in much of the United States and in Canada. In these statutes, stranger rape carries severe penalties with less severe penalties for other forms of forced sexual intercourse.These data support the contention that college students accept/endorse the criminalization of all forms of forced sexual intercourse. Over 70% of the subjects labelled all characterizations as either rape or date rape, and over 97% of the subjects labelled all characterizations without levels of intimacy (kissing and hugging or a sexual relationship) as rape or date rape. Men and women members of fraternities or sororities were less likely than non-fraternity or non-sorority men and women to label a characterization as rape.Over 64% of the subjects endorsed the use of the justice system to process cases of sexual assault by endorsing criminal penalties for all 11 of the characterizations. The level of penalty decreased as the degree of association increased for all characterizations. Men tended to endorse lower levels of penalty than women, and sorority women tended to endorse higher penalties than other subjects.The literature reviewed here indicates that men and women tend to have different perspectives in a number of areas related to rape. The influence of fraternity/sorority on these perceptions is not as clear. It is possible that these perceptions is not as clear. It is possible that these organizations define social/sexual interaction differently for their members, that the current focus on date rape is producing denial for members of social organizations, or that these organizations foster beliefs which hold women more responsible for controlling sexual behaviour. Further research will be needed to explore this relationship. It should be noted that the studied campus has invested substantial interest in the issue of date rape over the past 10 years. Fraternities and sororities have been particularly active in campus educational initiatives promoting a redefinition of the circumstances under which aggressive sexual behaviour is unacceptable.The move toward the criminalization of forms of sexual assault which were not criminalized 20–30 years ago can be observed in this sample of college students. Substantial majorities of the subjects identified forced sexual intercourse in marital and dating relationships as rape or date rape and selected criminal penalties for these acts. In the past, these behaviours have been tolerated to the extent that it was considered inappropriate to label as criminal cases, those cases in which the woman could be characterized as a willing participant in intimate behaviour prior to the act or in which a relatively permanent relationship existed. Changes in law and procedures occurred in the 1970s while public attitudes were found to be less than supportive of women victims through the 1980s.The nature of sexually offensive behaviour and the context in which sexually offensive behaviour occurs must be more fully examined in order to understand the processes which may lead to further criminalization in this area. The questionnaire used in this study permitted a preliminary evaluation of a very complex set of phenomena. While it has yielded valid information, the next set of studies in this area will need to develop instruments which focus on aspects of forced sexual intercourse which are unclear at this time. The nature of courtship and the differences between acceptable courtship behaviour, unpleasant but lawful sexual behaviour, and illegal behaviour must be explored as the justice system moves toward increased criminalization of offensive sexual behaviours.