|
The Evening Post
January 1, 2002
Specialists wanted to handle sex crimes
by Mark Stevens
Police assume too often that a female complainant must be lying, says
criminologist Dr Jan Jordan.
Police need specially trained sex crime investigators, a Victoria University
doctor of criminology says.
Dr Jan Jordan - who recently published the thesis True `Lies' And False
`Truths': Women, Rape And The Police - said a key benefit of having police
specialists would be their knowledge of victim psychology.
Women had been portrayed as liars from as long ago as the Garden Of Eden. Dr Jordan's
research - which involved interviewing several rape victims and investigators
- revealed that these doubts about rape complainants' credibility dominated
police inquiries.
She said the police hierarchy had been reluctant to specialise in sex crime
investigations, using resourcing as an excuse. But it suggested sex offences
weren't a priority.
Police, and often society's, disbelieving view of rape was highlighted by New
Zealand law allowing men to rape their wives up until the mid-1980s. However,
the seriousness of sex crimes was reflected by New Zealand statutes imposing a
stiffer penalty for rape than for any other crime where the victim survived.
"There are key individuals within all levels of police that think it is
a priority. But the overall organisation has to realise the damage done by
this offence, and the benefits from providing better services overall to
victims," Dr Jordan
said. "Many rapists walk free because the myths about rape are still
evident - `women lie' - so their claims of rape are dismissed."
One false notion held by some investigators was that 50 percent of rape
complainants were lying. International research consistently revealed police
approached rape victims with overly inflated doubts about their credibility.
While there are no firm statistics, United States research holds the
level of false complaints at between 2 percent and 5 percent.
Another myth is the perception that rape victims need to deal with a woman
police officer. Dr Jordan's
research found victims were more concerned with having someone who believed
them, was sensitive and professional - usually irrespective of gender.
In some cases, female police interviewing victims had over-compensated and
been harder on victims to fit into the police culture and be "one of the
boys".
The traditionally "macho culture" of policing had a negative impact
on policewomen as well as female victims, and was a barrier to change, she
said.
Dr Jordan
said specially trained sex crime investigators would, ideally, be aware of
victim psychology and realise that some complainants got facts wrong because
they were in trauma and confused, not because they were lying.
Police were looking at a policy of taking delayed statements, allowing
victims to take a break after completing the initial - and forensically
valuable - medical examination. But this had to be considered along with the
need for police to get a head start in catching the offender. In about 90
percent of rape cases, however, the offender was already known to the victim.
Furthermore, some genuine victims had been found to have lied - or retracted
their complaint - as a reaction to severe grilling by suspicious police.
Dr Jordan
said having specialist sex crime investigators wouldn't prevent police
analysing evidence and still deciding not to lay charges. Although it wasn't
the police's role to act as judge and jury, they could use their discretion
and explain their reasons clearly to the victim. She said this was important
so victims understood that their case wasn't proceeding because of a lack of
evidence, not because they weren't believed.
The police hierarchy had been responsive to her research and were
increasingly recognising the value of victims in successful law enforcement.
The need was for specialists, she said, not necessarily a full-time dedicated
squad.
|
