Use of Forensic Science in Investigating Crimes of Sexual Violence: Contrasting Its Theoretical Potential With Empirical Realities

Violence Against Women

Volumn 18, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 193-222

  Johnson, Donald ^a   Peterson, Joseph ^a   Sommers, Ira ^a   Baskin, Deborah ^a  

^a CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

forensic evidence; rape case processing; sexual assault kits

Indexed keywords

DNA;

ADULT; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CRIMINAL LAW; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; FORENSIC SCIENCE; HUMAN; LAW ENFORCEMENT; MALE; METHODOLOGY; RAPE; REVIEW; VIOLENCE;

ADULT; CRIMINAL LAW; DECISION MAKING; DNA; FEMALE; FORENSIC SCIENCES; HUMANS; LAW ENFORCEMENT; MALE; RAPE; VIOLENCE; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84863355773     PISSN: 10778012     EISSN: 15528448     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1077801212440157     Document Type: Review

References (59)

1. Albonetti C.Prosecutorial discretion: The effects of uncertainty.Law & Society Review. 1987;21:291-313.
2. AlderdenM. A. (2008). Processing of sexual assault cases through the criminal justice system. (Doctoral dissertation) University of Illinois, Chicago, University Microfilms UMI Number 3327392.
3. Allard J. E.The collection of data from findings in cases of sexual assault and the significance of spermatozoa on vaginal, anal, and oral swabs.Science & Justice. 1997;37:99-108.
4. Berk R.An introduction to sample selection bias in sociological data.American Sociological Review. 1983;48:386-398.
5. Butler J. M.Forensic DNA typing: Biology, technology, and genetics of STR markers. 2005). Forensic DNA typing: Biology, technology, and genetics of STR markers (2nd ed.). Burlington, MA: Elsevier.Burlington, MA: Elsevier; 2005:.
6. Beichner D.,Spohn C.Prosecutorial charging decisions in sexual assault cases: Examining the impact of a specialized prosecution unit.Criminal Justice Policy Review. 2005;16:461-498.
7. Bouffard J. A.Predicting type of sexual assault case closure from victim, suspect, and case characteristics.Journal of Criminal Justice. 2000;28:527-542.
8. Campbell G. P.,Gordon A. L.Analysis of condom lubricants for forensic casework.Journal of Forensic Sciences. 2007;52:630-642.
9. Campbell R.,Patterson D.,Bybee D.,Dworkin E. R.Predicting sexual assault prosecution outcomes: The role of medical forensic evidence collected by sexual assault nurse examiners.Criminal Justice and Behavior. 2009;36:712-727.
10. Durose M.Census of publicly funded forensic crime laboratories, 2005. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics; 2008:.
11. DuMont J.,Parnis D.Rape laws and rape processing: The contradictory nature of corroboration.Canadian Woman Studies. 1999;19:74-79.
12. Dziegelewski M.,Simich J. P.,Rittenhouse-Olson K.Use of a Y chromosome probe as an aid in the forensic proof of sexual assault.Journal of Forensic Sciences. 2002;47:601-604.
13. Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 (1964).
14. Estrich S.Real rape. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1987:.
15. Feldberg G.Defining the facts of rape: The uses of medical evidence in sexual assault trials.Canadian Journal of Women and the Law. 1997;9:89-114.
16. Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2010). CODIS. Retrieved from http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/codis/codis_brochure.
17. Fisher B. A.Techniques of crime scene investigation. 2004). Techniques of crime scene investigation (7th ed.). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2004:.
18. Forst B.,Lucianovic J.,Cox S.What happens after arrest? A court perspective of police operations in the District of Columbia. Washington, DC: Institute for Law and Social Research; 1977:.
19. Frazier P. A.,Haney B.Sexual assault cases in the legal system: Police, prosecutor, and victim perspectives.Law and Human Behavior. 1996;20:607-628.
20. Gaensslen R. E.,Lee H. C.Sexual assault evidence: National assessment and guidebook. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS); 2002:.
21. Garvin A. M.,Bottinelli M.,Gola M.,Conti A.,Soldati G.DNA preparation from sexual assault cases by selective degradation of contaminating DNA from the victim.Journal of Forensic Sciences. 2009;54:1297-1303.
22. Gray-Eurom K.,Seaberg D. C.,Wears R. L.The prosecution of sexual assaults cases: Correlation with forensic evidence.Annals of Emergency Medicine. 2002;39:39-46.
23. Greenwood P.,Chaiken J.,Petersilia J.,Prusoff L.The criminal investigation process, Vol. III: Observations and analysis. Santa Monica, CA: RAND; 1975:.
24. Grossin C.,Sibille I.,Lorin la de,Grandmaison G.,Banasr A.,Brion F.,Durigon M.Analysis of 418 cases of sexual assault.Forensic Science International. 2003;131:125-130.
25. Hall A.,Ballantyne J.Novel Y-STR typing strategies reveal the genetic profile of the semen donor in extended interval post-coital cervicovaginal samples.Forensic Sciences International. 2003;136:58-72.
26. Hatsch D.,Amory S.,Keyser C.,Hienne R. M.,Bertrand L.A rape case solved by mitochondrial DNA mixture analysis.Journal of Forensic Sciences. 2007;52:891-894.
27. Heckman J.Sample selection bias as a specification error.Econometrica. 1979;47:153-161.
28. Heumann M.Plea bargaining: The experiences of prosecutors, judges and defense attorneys. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 1977:.
29. Hilden M.,Schei B.,Sidenius K.Genitoanal injury in adult female victims of sexual assault.Forensic Science International. 2005;154:200-205.
30. Human Rights Watch. (2009). Testing justice: The rape kit backlog in Los Angeles city and county. Retrieved from http://www.hrw.org/en/council.
31. Ingemann-Hansen O.,Brink O.,Sabroe S.,Sorenson V.,Vesterbye-Charles A.Legal aspects of sexual violence-Does forensic evidence make a difference?.Forensic Science International. 2008;180:98-104.
32. James S. H,Nordby J. J.Forensic science: An introduction to scientific and investigative techniques. 2005). Forensic science: An introduction to scientific and investigative techniques (2nd ed.). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2005:.
33. Kalven H.,Zeisel H.The American jury. Boston, MA: Little, Brown; 1966:.
34. Kingsnorth R. F.,MacIntosh R. C.,Wentworth J.Sexual assault: The role of prior relationship and victim characteristics in case processing.Justice Quarterly. 1999;16:275-302.
35. LaFree G. D.Official reactions to social problems: Police decisions in sexual assault cases.Social Problems. 1981;28:582-594.
36. Lassers W. K.Proof of guilt in capital cases: An unscience.Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science. 1967;58:310-316.
37. Maynard P.,Allwell K.,Roux C.,Dawson M.,Royds D.A protocol for the forensic analysis of condom and personal lubricants found in sexual assault cases.Forensic Science International. 2001;124:140-156.
38. Mayntz-Press K. A.,Sims L. M.,Hall A.,Ballantyne J.Y-STR profiling in extended interval (3 days) postcoital cervicovaginal samples.Journal of Forensic Sciences. 2008;53:342-348.
39. McDonald W. F.,Rossman H. H.,Cramer J. A.The prosecutor's plea bargaining decisions.The prosecutor. McDonald W. F., ed. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE; 1979:151-208.
40. McGregor A. J.,DuMont J.,Myhr T. L.Sexual assault forensic medical examination: Is evidence related to successful prosecution?.Annals of Emergency Medicine. 2002;39:639-647.
41. McGregor M. J.,Le G.,Marion S. A.,Wiebe E.Examination for sexual assault: Is the documentation of physical injury associated with the laying of charge? A retrospective study.Canadian Medical Association Journal. 1999;160:1565-1569.
42. Ménard K. S.,Ruback B.Prevalence and processing of child sexual abuse: A multi-data set analysis of urban and rural counties.Law and Human Behavior. 2003;27:385-402.
43. Report on lawlessness in law enforcement. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office; 1931:.
44. NegruszA. (2003). Detection of "date-rape" drugs in hair and urine (Final report). Retrieved from http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/201894.pdf.
45. Olsen V.,Gustavsen I.,Bramness J. G.,Hasvold I.,Karinen R.,Christophersen A. S., et al.The concentrations, appearance and taste of nine sedating drugs dissolved in four different beverages.Forensic Science International. 2005;151:171-175.
46. Parker B.Scientific proof.Revista Juridica de la Universidad de P.R. 1963;32:201-213.
47. Parker B.,Peterson J.Physical evidence utilization in the administration of criminal justice. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office; 1972:.
48. Peterson J.,Hickman M.Census of publicly funded forensic crime laboratories, 2002. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics; 2005:.
49. Peterson J.,Mihajlovic S.,Gilliland M.Forensic evidence and the police: The effects of scientific evidence on criminal investigations. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office; 1984:.
50. Peterson J.,Ryan J.,Houlden P.,Mihajlovic S.The uses and effects of forensic science in the adjudication of felony cases.Journal of Forensic Sciences. 1987;32:1730-1753.
51. Peterson J.,Sommers I.The role and impact of forensic evidence in the criminal justice process. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice; 2009:.
52. Science and technology and police task force reports. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; 1967:.
53. Rosett A.,Cressey D.Justice by consent: Plea bargains in the American courthouse. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott; 1976:.
54. Sommers M. S.,Schafer J.,Zink T.,Hutson L.,Hillard P.Injury patterns in women resulting from sexual assault.Trauma, Violence, & Abuse. 2001;2:240-258.
55. Spears J. W.,Spohn C.The effect of evidence factors and victim characteristics on prosecutors' charging decisions in sexual assault cases.Justice Quarterly. 1997;14:501-524.
56. Spohn C.,Beichner D.,Davis-Frenzel E.Prosecutorial justifications for sexual assault case rejection: Guarding the "gateway to justice.".Social Problems. 2001;48:206-235.
57. Spohn C.,Holleran D.Prosecuting sexual assault: A comparison of charging decisions in sexual assault cases involving strangers, acquaintances, and intimate partners.Justice Quarterly. 2004;18:651-688.
58. Spohn C.,Spears J.The effects of offender and victim characteristics on sexual assault case processing decisions.Justice Quarterly. 1996;13:649-679.
59. Wayne Jones A.,Kugelberg F. C.,Holmgren A.,Ahlner J.Occurrence of ethanol and other drugs in blood and urine specimens from female victims of alleged sexual assault.Forensic Science International. 2008;181:40-46.