The U.S. Department of Justice estimates that between 149,200 and 209,400 incidents of sexual victimization occur annually in prisons and jails. However, very few individuals experiencing sexual victimization during incarceration report these incidents to correctional authorities. Federal-level policy recommendations derived from the Prison Rape Elimination Act suggest mechanisms for improving reporting as well as standards for the prevention, investigation, and prosecution of prison-based sexual victimization. Despite these policy recommendations, sexual assault persists in prisons and jails, with only 8% of prisoners who experience sexual assault reporting their victimization. This review focuses on gaps in the existing research about what factors influence whether adult victims in incarcerated systems will report that they have been sexually assaulted. Using ecological theory to guide this review, various levels of social ecology are incorporated, illuminating a variety of factors influencing the reporting of sexual victimization during incarceration. These factors include the role of individual-level behavior, assault characteristics, the unique aspects and processes of the prison system, and the social stigma that surrounds individuals involved in the criminal/legal system. This review concludes with recommendations for future research, policy, and practice, informed by an ecological conceptualization of reporting.

In the United States, all 50 states and the District of Columbia have enacted statutes that allow police officers to make warrantless arrests for domestic violence given probable cause; however, state laws differ from one another in multiple, important ways. Research on domestic violence warrantless arrest laws rarely describe them as anything more than discretionary, preferred, or mandatory, either within their analyses or within the texts of their publications; researchers, and their audiences, may not be aware of the vast and potentially important differences among these laws. In this article, we list the domestic violence warrantless arrest laws for each state, and discuss them in terms of five common elements: the phrasing of the arrest authority; whether additional factors to domestic violence are required to trigger the arrest authority; qualifications to the arrest authority; time limits for warrantless arrest to occur; and whether police officers are required to report why they made a dual or no arrest. We then analyze the common elements of the laws, paying particular attention to how they may encourage or discourage the arrest of alleged domestic violence perpetrators. It is critical that researchers, advocates, and policymakers are aware of these variations in state statutes when conducting or interpreting research or making policy recommendations.

Warrantless arrest laws for domestic violence (DV) are generally classified as discretionary, preferred, or mandatory, based on the level of power accorded to police in deciding whether to arrest. However, there is a lack of consensus in the literature regarding how each state's law should

Intimate partners commit approximately one in three homicides against women worldwide. Little is known about situational factors that contribute to intimate partner homicides (IPH) and how they may differ across nations. This article provides a cross-national exploration of one situational factor, the use of firearms in the commission of homicides, and considers whether nations have laws designed specifically to keep firearms out of the hands of batterers. We conducted a systematic search of peer-reviewed research and governmental and nongovernmental reports for data on weapon use in IPH. Data were located for 15 nations and subnational areas, which varied from firearms being involved in no IPHs in Fiji to 59% in Antalya, Turkey. Seven nations have legislation that addresses gun ownership as it relates to those who have been charged with, convicted of, or show a propensity toward the commission of intimate partner violence. These laws vary in whether domestic violence is a factor considered in whether to allow firearm ownership or whether it served to disqualify ownership. Due to the small number of nations for which data on weapon use in IPH were located, we did not conduct any hypothesis testing. There is a need for detailed homicide surveillance systems among nations so that researchers can explore the epidemiology of these homicides and ultimately identify opportunities for intervention.

More than 80,000 prisoners each year are sexually victimized during incarceration, but only about 8% report victimization to correctional authorities. Complicating reporting is the fact that half of the perpetrators are staff members. Given the restrictive and highly regulated prison environment, studies that examine reporting behaviors are difficult to conduct and to date information available relied on those who have reported or hypothetical victimization studies. This study uses an ecological framework and archival data from a class action lawsuit of sexual misconduct to determine predictors of reporting. Relying on a subsample of 179 women, chosen because they have all experienced at least 1 penetration offense, we use bivariate and multivariable mixed effects logistic regression analyses to examine individual, assault, and context-level predictors of reporting on 397 incidents of staff sexual misconduct. The final model revealed that that 6 predictors (age at time of assault, physical injury, multiple incidents, perpetrator with multiple victims, the year the abuse began, and the number of years women have left on their sentence) account for 58% of the variance in reporting. Disclosure to inmate peers and/or family and friends was significant in the bivariate results. These findings indicate the need for stronger and more systematic implementation of Prison Rape Elimination Act guidelines and remedies that create and enforce sanctions, including termination, for staff violating policy and state law. (PsycINFO Database Record

In the last decade, two influential international political figures, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, former head of the International Monetary Fund, and Moshe Katsav, former President of Israel, were accused of engaging in extreme and ongoing patterns of sexual violence. The collection of formal charges against the two men included rape, forcible indecent assault, sexual harassment, and obstruction of justice. The respective narratives surrounding the allegations against Katsav and Strauss-Kahn have their own individual characteristics, and each of the cases unfolded in diverging ways. Yet, the actions of these two men taken together, and the corresponding response of the legal systems in France, Israel, and the United States, offer an opportunity to evaluate contemporary issues of rape and power from a comparative perspective. This Article begins by telling the stories of how Strauss-Kahn and Katsav engaged in systematic patterns of sexual violence. It provides important background and context against which the two men are evaluated, offering a comparative analysis of the laws under which they faced accusations, formal charges, and in some instances, convictions. It is difficult to understand the ways in which the legal system and even the media responded to these allegations of sexual violence. This Article considers the victimization of women by the politically powerful by utilizing a framework created originally by Norwegian sociologist Nils Christie that identifies a set of characteristics describing the “ideal victim.” It next examines some of the legal issues impacted by stereotypes of “ideal” victims that conflict with the reality of “real” victims, making recommendations for expanding Christie’s framework to include an equally comprehensive evaluation of perpetrators and more importantly, the power differential that exists between victim and perpetrator. Midway through this Article, I explore the connection between sexuality, seduction, and sexual violence, and argue for a disentangling of these constructs. Finally, this article concludes by considering how the allegations against these powerful international political figures might advance the conversation on the intersection of sexual violence and power.

Sexual victimization during incarceration has been declared cruel and unusual punishment. Although the Prison Rape Elimination Act mandated new standards, the problem persists. Class action litigation is an alternate strategy to ensure prisoners' rights are protected. However, even when such litigation is successful, there is little known about the participants' perceptions of whether justice was attained in the process (procedural) or outcomes (distributive). Neal v. MDOC (1998), a class action settled on behalf of 809 women sexually abused by staff during incarceration, is a landmark case with national implications. Understanding participant perceptions can enhance those implications. Using surveys mailed to participants residing in the community with valid addresses (n ϭ 399), 156 women responded (39% response rate). Three scales measured procedural/distributive justice and a path analysis used explanatory variables as multivariate regressors on the scales to determine how individual and contextual factors affected perceptions. Perceptions of justice were positively associated with women's motivations to 'do the right thing' and their feelings of empowerment. Perceptions of prison improvement were positively related to themes that the corrections department was punished; negatively associated with staff retaliation. Predictably, women who were currently unemployed and seeking employment had lower scores on the Financial Benefit Scale whereas those endorsing security from settlement funds rated it higher. Because of the intersections of race, class, gender, and legal status, incarcerated women are rarely heard or validated. This lawsuit provided an opportunity for both. Importantly, women less positive about justice wanted their individual perpetrators punished-an unattainable goal in this class action.

No abstract