Social perception of rape victims

Since 1975, 40 states have enacted “rape shield” statustes which limit the admissibility of a rape victim's prior sexual history in court. These reforms have assumed that jurors regard prior sexual history evidence as much too probative of a victim's credibility and moral character, and that such perceptions have a prejudicial impact on the outcome of the jury decision process. The present research adopted an attributional analysis in order to examine the extent to which the types of legal reform affect social perception of the victim as well as the conviction rate in a videotaped consent defense rape trial. A large-scale jury simulation experiment was conducted with qualified jurors from the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area. Jurors either viewed an Improbable or Probable Likelihood of (victim) Consent version of the trial, with admission of prior sexual history evidence governed by one of three types of exclusionary rules. The results lend credence to the reformist contention that a rape victim is “on trial” along with the accused. Jurors were reluctant to convict when any testimony about prior sexual history was introduced. Moreover, jurors' close scrutiny of the victim's credibility and moral character was directly related to the conviction rate. Only the most restrictive evidentiary rule, when applied to an Improbable Consent case, curtailed the inference of victim consent, enhanced victim credibility, and increased the likelihood of conviction. Some of the legal and attributional implications of these findings were discussed.     

Nativity status and racial/ethnic differences in access to quality housing: Does homeownership bring greater parity?

Abstract

In this article, we use data from the 2001 American Housing Survey to evaluate whether nativity‐status differences in housing conditions vary by tenure and whether nativity status or race/ethnicity plays a more important role in determining housing conditions. Overall, when compared with native‐born households, recently arrived immigrant households are significantly more likely to be crowded, but either as likely or significantly less likely to live in poorer‐quality housing.

Further analysis revealed, however, that race/ethnicity is a stronger indicator than immigrant status in predicting housing outcomes. Among homeowners, black and Hispanic households, regardless of nativity status, exhibited lower‐quality housing outcomes than native‐born and, frequently, foreign‐born whites. Thus, we find that minorities are doubly disadvantaged: They are less likely to attain homeownership than whites, and once they do, they are almost always significantly more likely to live in poorer‐quality housing.     

Nativity differences in neighborhood quality among New York city households

Abstract

This article adds to the literature on locational attainment of immigrants by evaluating how immigrant households in New York City compare with native‐born households with respect to neighborhood characteristics. It also examines whether the relationship between immigrant status and neighborhood quality varies by race/ethnicity and place of birth.

Overall, foreign‐born households are more likely than native‐born households to live in neighborhoods with less access to medical care, higher rates of tuberculosis, and higher concentrations of poverty. Multivariate analyses reveal that all but one of these disadvantages disappear for foreign‐born households as a group. However, island‐born Puerto Ricans and immigrants—especially Dominicans, Caribbeans and Africans, and Latin Americans—are more likely to reside in lower‐quality neighborhoods than native‐born white households. Equally important, native‐born blacks and Hispanics are also disproportionately disadvantaged relative to native‐born whites, suggesting that a racial hierarchy exists in the locational attainment of households in New York City.     

Can Civil Society Organizations Solve the Crisis of Partisan Representation in Latin America?

This article takes up the question of whether civil society organizations (CSOs) can and do act as mechanisms of representation in times of party crisis. It looks at recent representation practices in Argentina, Bolivia, and Brazil, three countries where political parties have experienced sharp crises after several decades of mixed reviews for their party systems. At such moments, any replacement of parties by CSOs should be especially apparent. This study concludes that the degree of crisis determines the extent that CSOs' representative functions replace partisan representation, at least in the short term. Where systems show signs of re‐equilibration, CSOs offer alternative mechanisms through which citizens can influence political outcomes without seeking to replace parties. Where crisis is profound, CSOs claim some of the basic party functions but do not necessarily solve the problems of partisan representation.