Just one more sentence: challenges in identifying nonfatal strangulation in rape reports
Rachel Lovell et al.
What the paper says
Purpose This paper aims to address two key challenges in identifying nonfatal strangulation in rape reports: (1) siloed research, which has largely focused on lethal strangulation in sexual homicides, strangulation as a sexual fetish or strangulation within consensual intimate relationships to improve sexual satisfaction, and (2) difficulty identifying the presence of nonfatal strangulation from rape report narratives. The study has two corresponding key aims: (1) to merge key studies from various disciplines on nonfatal strangulation research from separate disciplines and (2) to elucidate the methodological difficulties of identifying victims who experienced nonfatal strangulation during a rape from police incident report narratives. Design/methodology/approach Data were extracted from case files from two U.S. jurisdictions awarded Bureau of Justice Assistance funding from the Sexual Assault Kit Initiative, including incident and initial investigative reports. Nonfatal strangulation was measured in two ways: (1) a dichotomous variable derived from reading police report narratives and (2) a keyword search of researchers' textual summaries. Findings We detail the processes undertaken and the outcomes in identifying nonfatal strangulation in rape reports, including two key methodological obstacles encountered when seeking to classify cases as nonfatal strangulation present or not: (1) issues with recall and (2) lack of specificity in incident reports (broken down further into three subthemes). Our findings support policy recommendations that seek to improve the documentation of nonfatal strangulation in reports by law enforcement and other professionals. Originality/value Little research exists on criminal nonfatal strangulation in rape or the challenges of using police reports to identify patterns unique to these offenses.
Evidence weight
Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40
| F · citation impact | 0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20 |
| M · momentum | 0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07 |
| V · venue signal | 0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03 |
| R · text relevance † | 0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20 |
† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.