Mock juror perception of sexual assault nurse examiner testimony

The Impact of Information From Mental Health Care Providers on Decisions About State Compensation for Violent Crime Victimization

In the Netherlands, as in many other countries, victims of intentionally committed violent crimes may apply for state compensation if the offender is unknown or unable to pay for the damages of the crime. This state compensation scheme is run by the Dutch Violent Offences Compensation Fund (VOCF). Lawyers who work for this fund need to evaluate applicants´ eligibility for state compensation on the basis of two criteria: (1) the plausibility of the applicant's victimization story and (2) the severity of the injury sustained by the applicant. Whether these criteria are fulfilled is largely left to the discretion of the lawyer who evaluates the application. This discretionary power makes the decision-making process prone to biased outcomes. Inspired by previous research, this study investigated whether information from mental health care providers, such as psychiatrists or clinical psychologists, serves as a potential source of bias. Although this type of information may or should sometimes be used to evaluate an applicant's eligibility for compensation, in most cases it should not affect the outcome of this evaluation because of its potential unreliability. A statistical association between availability of information from mental health care providers and adjudication of state compensation is therefore not to be expected. Analyzing 246 applications submitted to the Dutch VOCF between July 1st 2016 and July 1st 2017, this study tested the empirical validity of this expectation. Results indicated that the availability of information of mental health care providers was associated with adjudication of state compensation. This finding was discussed in view of the literature on heuristic thinking and biased decision making and the study's limitations.

Great Sexpectations: The Impact of Participant Gender, Defendant Desirability, and Date Cost on Attributions of a Date Rape Victim and Defendant

We investigated the effect of the desirability of the defendant and the cost of a date on how participants assigned blame in a date rape context. Community participants (N = 211) read one of four date rape trial summaries that differed based on the two manipulated independent variables: the desirability of the defendant (i.e., high vs. low desirability) and the cost of the date (i.e., expensive [US$175] vs. inexpensive [US$30]). Participants then rated the victim and defendant on various attributes related to the trial (credibility, blame, and guilt) and post-date sexual behavior (expectations, want, and deservingness of sex). Overall, men viewed the victim more negatively and the defendant more positively than women. Participants in the high defendant desirability condition also viewed the victim as having higher want of sex following the date and rated the defendant as more credible. With regard to the cost of date manipulation, men viewed the defendant as more credible when a desirable defendant paid for an inexpensive date in comparison with an undesirable defendant. However, when the date was expensive, women viewed the desirable defendant as more credible than the undesirable defendant. Finally, we also found that participants' perceptions of the victim's expectations and want for sex and the defendant's deservingness for sex mediated the effects of participant gender and defendant desirability on victim and defendant blame.

Victim, Allegation, and Investigation Characteristics Associated With Substantiated Reports of Sexual Abuse of Adults in Residential Care Settings

The purpose of this study was to identify characteristics of investigations of sexual abuse concerning vulnerable adults residing in facility settings that were associated with case substantiation. Data on 410 reports of sexual abuse were collected prospectively from Adult Protective Services (APS) and state licensure agency staff in New Hampshire, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin over a six-month period. Specifically, we examined differences between reports that were substantiated and those that were not by comparing characteristics of alleged victims, alleged perpetrators, and aspects of investigation using logistic regression. We found that a relatively low proportion of cases (18%) were substantiated overall. Compared to cases that were not substantiated, cases that were substantiated were more likely to feature nursing home residents, older victims, female victims, and allegations of physical contact between the alleged perpetrator and victim. Despite the high proportion of alleged perpetrators who were facility staff (51%) compared to resident perpetrators (25%), cases with resident-to-resident allegations of abuse were much more likely to be substantiated, accounting for 63% of substantiated cases. In light of these findings, we believe it is important that investigators are trained to handle sexual abuse cases appropriately and that they are able to investigate the case thoroughly, promptly, and with as much information as possible. It is also critical that investigators make substantiation decisions using the appropriate standard for confirmation (e.g., preponderance of the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, clear and convincing evidence) as state law dictates.

Qualitative Analysis of Prosecutors' Perspectives on Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners and the Criminal Justice Response to Sexual Assault

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to understand prosecutors' perspectives on the contribution of Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners (SANEs) to evidence collection and trials in sexual assault cases.

BACKGROUND

Several studies have suggested that a sexual assault case is more likely to progress in the criminal justice system when a SANE conducts the forensic medical examination. However, little is known about how prosecutors perceive SANEs and what they value about SANEs versus other medical professionals.

METHOD

Semistructured interviews, conducted in one jurisdiction with eight assistant district attorneys who prosecute sexual assault cases, included questions about the value of SANEs in evidence collection and trials. Interview transcripts were analyzed to identify common themes and variability among prosecutors.

RESULTS

Most prosecutors identified advantages for SANEs in evidence collection, trial preparation, and testimony. Specific advantages cited by one or more prosecutors included superior documentation, thoroughness of the physical examination, better identification of injuries, quality of relationships with patients, professionalism, skill in trial preparation and testifying, and credibility with jurors.

DISCUSSION

These findings help validate SANEs' contribution to the criminal justice response to sexual assault, despite the study's limitations in sample size and inclusion of only one jurisdiction. The study also suggests the value of further education about SANEs for prosecutors who may not have the opportunity to learn about the range of skills SANEs possess.

Impeaching Rape Victims in Criminal Court: Does Concurrent Civil Action Hurt Justice?

The present study investigated the impact of impeaching a rape victim with evidence of a simultaneous civil suit during a criminal trial. In three experiments, male and female undergraduates (Experiment 1) and community members (Experiments 2 and 3) read a rape trial summary in which the victim accused the defendant of raping her in a hotel. In the impeachment condition, the Defense mentioned that the victim simultaneously sued either the hotel (Experiments 1, 2, 3) or the alleged perpetrator (Experiment 3) for US$1 million. In the control condition, the Defense did not mention a civil suit. In all experiments, mock jurors were more likely to render not guilty verdicts and had higher pro-defendant ratings (e.g., defendant credibility) when the Defense impeached the victim than when the Defense did not impeach her. In addition, victim credibility (Experiments 1, 2, 3) and victim greed (Experiment 3) mediated the impact of impeachment on verdict. Results are discussed in terms of the prejudice rape victims may face in criminal court when they also seek justice in civil court.

Improving the Credibility of Child Sexual Assault Victims in Court: The Impact of a Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner

The present study investigated the influence of a sexual assault nurse examiner's (SANE's) testimony on mock juror perceptions of a child or adolescent victim of child sexual assault. Community members (N = 252, 156 females) read a fictional criminal trial summary of a child sexual assault case in which the victim was 6 or 15 years old and the prosecution presented medical testimony from a SANE or a traditional registered nurse (RN), or did not present medical testimony. Mock jurors were more likely to render guilty verdicts when a SANE testified compared with the other two testimony conditions. In addition, pro-victim judgments (e.g., sympathy toward the victim) and negative defendant judgments (e.g., anger toward the defendant) mediated this relation. Finally, cognitive network representations of the case demonstrated that the RN and no-medical-testimony groups were similar and the SANE group was distinct from the other two conditions. We discuss these results in terms of the implications of SANE testimony in child sexual assault court cases.