The decision-making process of those who do not rape in a multiple perpetrator sexual offence: A taxonomy of engagement

• In Event: Rape and sexual assault

Abstract

Worldwide, upwards of a third of rapes are committed by groups of multiple perpetrators. The additional individuals amplify the offence’s complexity and cases exist where one or more individuals choose not to rape the victim(s). However, the individuals’ decisions to fully or partially disengage from sexually offending alongside others have not been investigated. This leaves a substantial gap in theoretical understanding and ability to design effective prevention programmes. This inquiry explored the potential influences in people’s decisions to a) leave the situation; b) engage without raping the victim; and c) remain present but inactive. The opinions of ten international expert-stakeholders in sexual offending were gathered on the subject, via online semi-structured interviews. Data was analysed using inductive thematic analysis. Results indicate a three-level taxonomy of increased engagement. Degree and type of participation depended on several dynamic and interrelated individual-, group-, and environmental-level factors. Individual factors involved background characteristics, assertiveness and communication skills, self-efficacy and self-awareness, views on women and sexual relationships, and morality. Group factors incorporated group characteristics, relationships, dynamics, and individual roles undertaken within the offence. Environmental factors included situational details and contextual drivers. The decision-making process was flexible and individual decisions were not stable: people can and do move between engagement levels, meaning that their actions may change from victim(s)-helping to rape-supportive, and vice-versa. Different factors may be more influential for different levels of engagement. Results are multifaceted, and the decision-making process is complex but individualised. Implications for policy, legislation, and police investigation changes, improvements in the sex education curriculum, societal changes, and theory development are discussed. Preliminary findings with the interest group of community individuals are briefly outlined.

Author

• Ioana Madalina Crivatu, University of Suffolk