Research note: Indecent exposure: A survey of victims in Melbourne
| Author | Andros Kapardis |
| Published date | 01 December 1984 |
| Date | 01 December 1984 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/000486588401700404 |
| Subject Matter | Original Article |
AUST &NZ JOURNAL
OF
CRIMINOLOGY (December
1984)
17
(233-238)
RESEARCH NOTE: INDECENT EXPOSURE:
ASURVEY OF VICTIMS IN MELBOURNE
Andros Kapardis*
233
Introduction
As Gittleson et al (1978) rightly pointed out,
in
most studies ofindecent exposure
(eg, Radzinowicz,
1957;
Rooth, 1971; Macdonald,
1973;
Bluglass,
1980)
the victims
are selected by the arrest of the exposer. Such studies are limited by the fact that
the majority of such episodes are not reported to the police (Rooth,
1972;
Macdonald, 1973; Gunn, 1978). Gittleson et al
(1978)
reported that about 33% out
of
40
consecutive female medical students attending for instruction in their
out-patient clinic in the mid
1970s
admitted to having been victims of indecent
exposure -an estimate higher than that reported by Landis (1956) for university
students. Gittleson et
ai,
found that only 25% of the
67
exposure incidents in their
study of
100
female nurses at apsychiatric hospital
in
Sheffield were reported to the
police; statements to the police were made in 18% of the incidents. Anational
survey in Australia (Braithwaite and Biles,
1979)
reported that the victimization
rate per 100,000 females
15
and over in Victoria
was
1100.
As far
as
it has been
possible to ascertain there has been no Australian study of women
as
victims of
indecent exposure comparable to those in the
US
and UK.
Indecent exposure in Victoria
is
mainly dealt with under s 7 of the Vagrancy Act
1966
which provides the following penalty for amale who "wilfully and obscenely
exposes his person in apublic place or in the view thereof": (a) For afirst offence,
imprisonment for two years; (b) For asecond or subsequent offence, imprisonment
for three years. Similarly,
in·
England and Wales most indecent exposure charges
are brought under s 8ofthe Vagrancy Act
1824
(Leigh, 1975:413). According to the
Victorian Police, in
1983
there were
1737
offences of wilful exposure reported of
which 24% were cleared up. Examination of County Court statistics (no such data
is
available for Magistrates' Courts) shows that the maximum penalties for indecent
exposure are almost never imposed.
As far
as
the psychology of indecent exposure
is
concerned, according to Storr
(1964:79) "the exhibitionist hopes to obtain an emotional reaction from the girl's
horror, disgust or excitement. It
is
essentially apunitive way of making himself felt
as
aman. By this crude insistence upon his virility, the exhibitionist hopes to
produce aresponse in afemale which will reassure him that, even if he cannot
command her love, he may at least be powerful enough to produce some kind of
shock in her".
Regarding the aetiology of indecent
exposur~,
psychoanalysts maintain that "the
development of exhibitionism
is
associated with aseductive relationship with the
mother, and severe castration anxiety arising from the child's incestuous yearnings"
(Rooth, 1971:531). Behaviourist explanations, on the other hand, (eg, Rosen,
1974)
are cast in terms of learning and habit. Finally, according to "constitutional"
explanations (Jones and Frei,
1979)
the exposer represents the emergence of an
inappropriate instinctive behaviour pattern.
*Ph D, Lecturer, Department of Legal Studies, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia.
To continue reading
Request your trial