A typology of multiple perpetrator rape

Some consistency in existing typologies of rape has been found, which have extended from lone to multiple perpetrator offenses. The current study sought to explore the facets of multiple-perpetrator rape (MPR) in a sample representative of one geographical area. Seventy-five victim statements of MPR reported to an urban police force in the United Kingdom were classified into a qualitative model denoting offender actions in MPR. Four types from pathways through the model were produced: violence, criminality, intimacy, and sexuality. Analysis of the crime scene variables provided additional evidence of the four types. Finally, the associations between the four types and offense characteristics, such as victim and perpetrator age, were explored. Implications of these findings for the prevention and investigation of MPR are discussed along with suggestions for future research directions

Reconstructing and sequencing behaviours in multiple perpetrator rape

Much of the existing knowledge base of multiple perpetrator rape (MPR) comes from studies undertaken more than 20 years ago, and thus fails to integrate contemporary perspectives on sexual violence. The current study used Grounded Theory methodology to construct a holistic model of MPR from 15 victim accounts. The model of multiple perpetrator rape (MMPR) included both the actions of the perpetrators and the reactions of the victim in a temporal sequence of 13 categories, 9 of which had sub-categories that allowed for individual differences. Broad themes of MPR were then explored using a total of 101 cases. Each case was coded in the 9 sub-categories where individual differences were allowed from the model. An associative analysis of these sub-categories was then performed using Smallest Space Analysis. Two dominant themes were displayed. The Manipulate theme included two perpetrators who offended sequentially and socialised with the victim. The Force theme did not involve any social interaction, as the force and teamwork of the group enabled the victim to be physically overpowered

‘It is not for me to say whether consent was given or not’: forensic medical examiners’ construction of ‘neutral reports’ in rape cases

Attrition rate studies have outlined the role the ‘real rape’ stereotype plays in prosecutor decisions concerning the progression of rape cases through the criminal justice system. According to the ‘real rape’ stereotype, the victim should attend the medical examination with significant physical injury, and therefore police, prosecutors and jurors take injury evidence into consideration when deciding the veracity of the complainant’s allegation. However, forensic medical studies have shown injuries to be rare, and even when present, consent cannot be dismissed. To this end, in nearly all cases Forensic Medical Examiners (FMEs) produce ‘neutral reports’; reports that neither confirm nor deny the complainant’s allegation. In this article I explore FMEs’ justifications for neutral reports, and find that their production reinforces FMEs’ expertise. FMEs construct boundaries, distancing themselves from contentious issues. While such boundaries ensure authority, they limit evidential significance, which in turn provides a space for the prosecution to dismiss evidence that does not conform to the popular understanding of rape. Such a ‘vicious cycle’ of prosecutorial decision-making removes the opportunity for FMEs to explain the limits of injury evidence to the police, prosecutors and the jury and reinforces the belief that injuries are a necessary outcome of rape assaults