Reconstructing and sequencing behaviours in multiple perpetrator rape

Abstract

Much of the existing knowledge base of multiple perpetrator rape (MPR) comes from studies undertaken more than 20 years ago, and thus fails to integrate contemporary perspectives on sexual violence. The current study used Grounded Theory methodology to construct a holistic model of MPR from 15 victim accounts. The model of multiple perpetrator rape (MMPR) included both the actions of the perpetrators and the reactions of the victim in a temporal sequence of 13 categories, 9 of which had sub-categories that allowed for individual differences. Broad themes of MPR were then explored using a total of 101 cases. Each case was coded in the 9 sub-categories where individual differences were allowed from the model. An associative analysis of these sub-categories was then performed using Smallest Space Analysis. Two dominant themes were displayed. The Manipulate theme included two perpetrators who offended sequentially and socialised with the victim. The Force theme did not involve any social interaction, as the force and teamwork of the group enabled the victim to be physically overpowered.     

Maybe I Should Do This Alone: A Comparison of Solo and Co-offending Robbery Outcomes

There has been a notable increase in co-offending research in recent years, with most studies focusing on the causes and correlates of co-offending. There is little known, however, about the consequences of co-offending and how it may influence crime event outcomes for the offender. The present study compares the monetary reward and arrest risk of solo and co-offending robberies. Data from the National Incident Based Reporting System were analyzed to examine the characteristics and outcomes of robberies perpetrated by one, two, three, and four or more offenders. Though co-offending incidents were associated with greater total property value stolen, co-offending incidents resulted in significantly less property value per offender, controlling for other incident characteristics. The likelihood of an incident resulting in an arrest significantly increased with the number of offenders. We discuss the implications of our findings for theory and research on the real and perceived benefits and costs of co-offending.     

作为组织支配的正犯后正犯——支配型共谋的德国理解与中国问题

对于最终没有实行犯罪行为的参与共谋者,应如何承担刑事责任,存在很大争议;不应一般性地承认共谋共同正犯,而应将“共谋”的共同参与区分为支配型共谋与对等型共谋,相应确定不同的参与人类型。德国学理和判例创立“正犯后正犯”法范畴,并运用基于有组织的权力机构的“组织支配”解释间接正犯性,通过展现德国该问题域的实践进路、理论论争和最新发展,为中国语境下解释组织支配和寻求处理支配型共谋的中国路径提供经验图景。     

双层区分制下正犯与共犯的区分

世界各国刑法关于共犯体系的立法存在着“单一制”与“区分制”两大类型。中国刑法中的共犯体系在解释论上可归结为区分制,如何区分正犯与共犯亦是中国共犯理论必须回答的问题。在德、日刑法中,正犯与共犯的区分具有同时解决参与人的定罪和量刑的双重功能。在此种单层区分制下,重视参与人在不法事实实现过程中的实质支配力或作用大小的犯罪事实支配理论、重要作用说有其论理上的妥当性。中国刑法对参与人同时采用了分工和作用两种并存不悖、功能各异的分类标准。分工分类标准下的正犯与共犯旨在解决参与人的定性及其间的关系问题,而不直接决定和评价参与人的刑罚轻重,承载量刑功能的是作用分类标准下的主犯和从犯。在这种双层区分制立法模式下,正犯与共犯的界分宜采以构成要件为轴心的实行行为说。     

“实行着手”的标准及认定

刑法以实行行为为犯罪规制的基本形态。行为是否开始着手实行原则上成为犯罪是否成立的标志性界限。所以,“着手”这一界限标准的确定无论是对犯罪的成立抑或犯罪其他特殊形态的认定都有着极为重大的意义。     

主犯正犯化质疑

刑法学界近来出现了将我国刑法中的“主犯”与德日刑法中的“正犯”等同化并用“正犯”概念代替“主犯”,即“主犯正犯化”的倾向。但在犯罪参与体系上,德日刑法采取的是区分正犯与共犯的区分制,而我国刑法采取的是将共同犯罪人分为主犯与从犯的单一制,这就决定了“主犯”与“正犯”概念有重要差异,不能用“正犯”代替“主犯”。主犯正犯化的思想根源是认为单一制存在缺陷,有必要用区分制的观念来解释我国刑法的相关概念和规定。但这既违反了罪刑法定原则,又忽视了我国所采取的单一制的优越性。主犯正犯化的隐患是从根本上否定有中国特色的犯罪参与体系,导致我国刑法失去公平合理处罚共同犯罪人的优势,使简单问题复杂化。     

Incorporating Co-offending in Sentencing Models: An Analysis of Fines Imposed on Antitrust Offenders

Analyses of sentencing (and other criminal justice processes such as the decision to prosecute, plea bargaining, and contact with the police) often use the isolated individual as the unit of analysis. However, the criminal justice system often processes either offenses or court cases rather than persons. If court cases always involved one individual, this would have little impact. However, offenses involving co-offending—two or more persons acting together—comprise a substantial proportion of criminal activity (Reiss, 1980, 1986). Depending on the prevalence of co-offending, it may be very likely that two or more individuals involved in the same case will be selected as members of the same sample of criminal justice or criminological data. Unless it can be shown that both the individual-level variables of co-offenders and their error terms are mutually independent, analyses based on methods such as ordinary least-squares multiple regression would violate the underlying assumptions of such models. However, alternatives to linear models assuming either type of independence are available. Among the most useful of these are mixed models, specifically those assuming compound symmetry. This is illustrated with an analysis of fines imposed on criminally convicted antitrust offenders. These models may yield results which are substantially different than those from models which ignore co-offending. In a model of fines imposed on antitrust offenders, models which ignore co-offending generally overstate both estimates and statistical significance of offense-level variables and understate those of offender-level variables.     

Co-offending between criminal enterprise groups

Rather than examining networks of individuals as prior research has done, this study systematically examines the structure and composition of co-offending among types of criminal enterprise groups. Using social network analysis, the authors show that different types of crime groups tend to have unique co-offending patterns as measured by network composition and structure. The results also support the countercurrent of criminologists who suggest that ethnically derived categories may be misleading when trying to classify criminal enterprise groups.     

Delinquent networks in Sweden

This study covers all persons under the age of 20 who were suspected of having committed a crime in the Swedish city of Borlänge (approx. 50,000 inhabitants) during the years of 1975–1977. The juveniles (575 in all) were followed up during a total of 10 years. A sociometric method based on police data was developed for studying co-offending patterns. The method was validated through a smaller number of interviews with the juveniles. This study shows that a large majority of the most delinquency active juveniles was associated with a large network of delinquent relations. The stronger the connection to this network, the more substantial, serious, and long-lasting were the delinquency and other asociality. This network also seemed to be very important with regard to the reproduction of juvenile delinquency in the municipality. At the end of the follow-up period juvenile delinquency in Borlänge had basically the same character as at the beginning, even though the juveniles included in the network were, to a large extent, new. The young offenders who were central figures in the new network had successively learned their roles from the network's old members.This paper is based on results published initially in a report entitledDelinquent Networks (Sarnecki, 1986).     

The Bystander in Relation to the Victim and the Perpetrator: Today and During the Holocaust

Most of the social-psychological literature assumes that prosocial behavior is part of the basic human repertoire and only when certain conditions become unfavorable, will the natural prosocial tendency fail (Latane & Darley, 1970). Only few researchers have addressed the general tendency toward bystanding behavior,² its relation to perpetrating behavior, trying to overcome it in victimizing scenes by activating the bystander and thereby reducing the potential for victimization (Staub, 1996). The present analysis suggests several psychosocial constructs that can account for bystanding behavior. Several factors (such as length of exposure, fragmentation of the planning and execution of the crime) are highlighted—in order to differentiate between low, middle range and high-level bystanding behavior. Finally, ten examples of bystanding behavior during the Holocaust are presented, suggesting that only a careful analysis of the context and its interaction with the persons involved may help us work through and perhaps prevent the potential negative aspects of bystanding behavior in future criminal acts.     

‘Criminal families’ and the court: co-offending in Amsterdam, 1897–1902

This article focuses on a specific aspect of the history of crime: co-offending (offending with one or more accomplices) in a family setting at the end of the nineteenth century. The aims of this article are to analyze how genders interacted in a criminal setting and to show a possible bias in the court's decision to prosecute ‘criminal families’, either in relation to the people involved or to the environment in which the crime was committed. This article also questions the relevance of the concept of the civilizing mission in a court setting towards ‘criminal families’ and compares it with the reality of the court's work. The study is based on the archives of Amsterdam's Arrondissementsgerecht between 1897 and 1902. This court was in charge of trying criminal offences committed in Amsterdam and its surrounding area (a semi-urban environment within a 25-kilometre radius) according to the 1886 Dutch code of laws. Urban and semi-urban co-offending criminal rates in Amsterdam and its surrounding area are compared, as well as gender patterns and class origins in relation to the crimes committed, in order to highlight a possible prejudice towards working-class offenders. The analysis reveals a high rate of co-offending in female criminality and more gender interactions in the urban environment. However, the results also show that, despite a general anxiety towards working-class families and rising crime rates, magistrates were not more inclined to prosecute them. The family situation was taken into account before trials, and semi-urban families were not treated more leniently than urban families.     

论无特殊身份者参与身份犯的基本界限与程度

在身份犯中,由于具备特殊身份的自然人的危害行为才可能侵犯法益,或加重、减轻法益的侵害,因此,刑法典分则将其作为一种特殊的犯罪类型加以规制。但不具备特殊身份者可以与具备特殊身份者共同侵犯身份犯保护的法益,因此,其可以成为身份犯的共同犯罪人。实行犯与正犯是两个不同的概念,具有不同的机能。对于无特殊身份者能否成为身份犯的共同实行犯之问题,须根据身份犯的实行行为分别而论。但无身份者不能成为身份犯的共同正犯,否则,"区别对待共同犯罪中的首恶者与胁从者,惩办少数,改造多数"之刑事政策就不能实现。