Attribution of responsibility for sexual crimes beyond individual actors – construction of responsibility of offenders, victims and society in laypersons’ explanations
| DOI | 10.1177/0269758018818931 |
| Published date | 01 September 2019 |
| Date | 01 September 2019 |
| Author | Johanna Kronstedt,Riikka Kotanen |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
Attribution of responsibility
for sexual crimes beyond
individual actors – construction
of responsibility of offenders,
victims and society in
laypersons’ explanations
Riikka Kotanen
University of Oxford, UK
Johanna Kronstedt
University of Helsinki, Finland
Abstract
This study analyses laypersons’explanations for sexual violence. It focusseson how the responsibility
for sexual crimes is constructed and attributed, and moreover, what kind of effect this has on the
attribution ofblame. The research data consistof 105 opinion pieces published inthe leading Finnish
newspaper since the beginning of the 21st century. The theory-driven qualitative analysis utilises
attribution theory and focusses on laypersons’ interpretations and explanations for unusual acts and
events deviatingfrom social norms. Attribution theory is commonly utilisedin relation to micro-level
actors, the offender and the victim,whereas in this article, it isbroadened to include also societyas a
macro-level actor. The analysis reveals that the construction of responsibility derives from (I) the
chronological presentation and explanation of sexual crimes; especially (II) the causality attached to
chronological phases, which emphasises the victim’s actions prior to the crime; and (III) the con-
struction of active female agency against male passivity or absence of the perpetrator. Moreover,
blame is based on a combination of active agency, produced in the analysed explanations, and ste-
reotypical features connected to female gender (e.g. rape myths).
Keywords
Sexual crimes, attribution of responsibility, victims, offenders, rape
Corresponding author:
Riikka Kotanen, University of Oxford, Centre for Criminology, St Cross Road, Oxford OX1 3UL, UK.
Email: riikka.kotanen@crim.ox.ac.uk
International Review of Victimology
2019, Vol. 25(3) 358–374
ªThe Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0269758018818931
journals.sagepub.com/home/irv
Introduction
One of the startling developments in regard to crime is the global decrease in violence. This has
been connected to the increasingly negative attitudes towards violence as well as a broader
recognition of human rights, which has increased sensitivity to any breach of physical integrity
(e.g. Eisner, 2014; Pinker, 2012). From the perspective of violence against women, physical and
sexual autonomy and their protection have been actively promoted by feminists since the 1970s,
and acknowledgement of them has intensified thereafter. A milestone was in 1993 when the United
Nations declared violence against women a human rights violation. Regardless of changing atti-
tudes and growing awareness, some features related to violence against women, and sexual crimes
in particular, seem to be especially entrenched. Individual and societal attitudes as well as their
responses and actions still indicate blame on the part of the victims of sexual crimes (e.g. Idisis and
Edoute, 2017; Suarez and Gadalla, 2010; Temkin et al., 2018).
Understandings and definitions concerning the limits of sexual self-regulation and sexual
crimes are formed in a cultural and historical context. The history of these definitions is easily
detectable in legislation on sexual crimes as well as in social attitudes. Historically, before the
victim of a sexual crime and her self-determination became a legal object of protection in Western
countries, rape was seen as a crime against the victim’s husband or the unmarried woman’s father
(e.g. Yllo¨, 2016). Sexually inexperienced young women and wives were the most important objects
to protect; in contrast, the rape of women with a promiscuous background was not regarded as a
crime (e.g. Freedman, 2013). Marital rape did not become a valid topic for criminal justice
consideration until the end of the 20th century (Finkelhorn and Yllo¨, 1985); a clear embodiment
of historical understandings in which a sexual relationship or acquaintance between the offender
and the victim has been considered a mitigating factor when assessing blameworthiness for the act
(e.g. Gavey, 2005; Russell, 1990).
Cultural and historical assumptions often influence which kind of sexual crimes are considered
as ‘real’ and what kind of victims are perceived as credible. A rape committed by a stranger using a
weapon and/or grievous physical violence is persistently seen as the ‘real rape’ (e.g. Burt, 1991;
Ellison and Munro, 2010), while the ideal rape victim is a sexually inexperienced, sober young
woman, who lives a socially honorable life. Moreover, the victim’s credibility is enhanced if she
does not know the offender and if she has visible physical injuries as a result of the struggle
defending herself during the sexual assault (e.g. McKimmie et al., 2014). Understandings con-
cerning the credibility of a rape victim are considered problematic because they focus on the
victim’s characteristics and behavior instead of those of the offender. These understandings are
referred to as ‘rape myths’, which are widely held beliefs concerning rape, its victims, and the
circumstances related to sexual violence. Rape myths are argued as serving to attribute responsi-
bility for men’s sexual behavior to women, simultaneously justifying men’s sexual aggression
towards women, and thus, reducing the responsibility of the offender (Burt, 1980; Lonsway and
Fitzgerald, 1994; Sleath and Woodhams, 2014).
According to the ‘just world’ theory (Lerner, 1980; Lerner and Miller, 1978), individuals have a
need to believe that the world is a place where people generally get what they deserve. The belief in
a ‘just world’ serves important psychological functions, as it enables the individual to perceive the
environment as stable and ordered (cf. Heider, 1958). Moreover, it gives an individual the impres-
sion that they have personal control over their own destiny (e.g. Furnham, 2003). Confronted with
evidence that the world is not just, such as victimisation from sexual crimes, feelings of dissonance
and discomfort awaken, and it becomes easier to explain the crime with reference to the
Kotanen and Kronstedt 359
To continue reading
Request your trial