Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Access Criminology and Criminal Justice journals now

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Social & Legal Studies
This Article
Right arrow Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (4)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Finch, E.
Right arrow Articles by Munro, V. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

The Demon Drink and the Demonized Woman: Socio-Sexual Stereotypes and Responsibility Attribution in Rape Trials Involving Intoxicants

Emily Finch

Brunel University, UK

Vanessa E. Munro

University of Nottingham, UK

Previous studies have illustrated the existence of a double standard in the attribution of responsibility in contested sexual consent scenarios whereby intoxicated defendants tend to be held less responsible for subsequent sexual events than their sober counterparts while intoxicated complainants tend to be held more responsible. This study examined the extent to which the means by which the complainants' intoxication was secured would influence this process.1 Mock jurors, having been exposed to a trial reconstruction in which intoxicated sexual consent was at issue, deliberated towards a unanimous, or failing that, majority verdict on whether rape had occurred. Across the trial scenarios, the only variables related to the type of intoxicant ingested and the means of its administration. In a context in which the Sexual Offences Act 2003 purports to restrict reliance in the jury room on questionable stereotypes about socio-sexual behaviour, this article considers the extent to which participants' views about responsibility for intoxication shaped their conclusions on the occurrence of, and liability for, rape. It also examines the ways in which the social acceptability of some intoxicants (alcohol) and the social unacceptability of others (Rohypnol) supported the construction of `drug-assisted rape' as distinguishable from more mundane instances of intoxicated sex.

Key Words: attribution of responsibility • consent • intoxication • rape • Sexual Offences Act 2003

Social & Legal Studies, Vol. 16, No. 4, 591-614 (2007)
DOI: 10.1177/0964663907082737


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Social Legal StudiesHome page
L. Ellison and V. E. Munro
Of 'Normal Sex' and 'Real Rape': Exploring The Use of Socio-Sexual Scripts in (Mock) Jury Deliberation
Social Legal Studies, September 1, 2009; 18(3): 291 - 312.
[Abstract] [PDF]