Police Reporting Practices for Sexual Assault Cases in Which “The Victim Does Not Wish to Pursue Charges”

Method

Results

To what extent do police incident reports indicate victim “chose to drop the case” in cases of sexual assault? What are the reasons documented in police incident reports for victim dropping the case?

Of the 125 cases of sexual assault reported to the police, 41 incident reports (32.8%) stated that the victim chose to drop the case or some variant of that phrase (e.g., “victim did not want to prosecute,” “chose not to go forward,” “victim doesn’t want to pursue charges,” “victim does not wish to press charges,” “requested case be inactivated,” “victim opted to end the investigation,” “victim did not wish to pursue case,” “victim is not interested in pursuing case,” “victim preferred not to deal with the case,” “victim did not want to continue with complaint”).

Of these 41 incident reports, 13 (30.2%) included explicit reasons why the victim chose not to pursue the case; 15 (36.6%) reports did not include an explicit reason, but did include other narrative information that we content coded; and 13 (31.7%) did not include an explicit reason or any additional narrative other than just stating that the victim did not wish to pursue the case/charges.

Of the 13 (30.2%) incident reports that included an explicit rationale, the following reasons were stated: general stress with the process or other life events (n = 5, 38.5%; including psychological distress associated with the reporting process and/or assault, pregnancy and abortion associated with the sexual assault, hospitalization or other complications due to unrelated medial issues, and divorce process with suspect); the suspect being in jail or on trial for another crime and/or the desire to pursue other charges (n = 4, 30%); the desire for the police to only warn the suspect or to keep an eye on him (n = 3, 23.1%); fear of the suspect or his family (n = 2, 15.4%); the desire for the police to help remove the suspect from the home, in cases related to intimate partner violence (n = 2, 15.4%); and feelings of self-blame (n = 1, 7.7%). These percentages exceed 100% given that some incident reports had multiple reasons as to why the victim chose to drop the case. Also in these 13 cases, there were 8 cases (61.5%) in which additional details were provided in the incident report, which may help shed further light on victims’ decision to drop the case (even if not explicitly stated as a reason in the report). Specifically, 2 (15.4%) of these reports included information that the victims had sought other formal help (i.e., mental health providers), 2 reports stated that the victim reported experiencing multiple incidents of sexual assault by the same defendant, 2 reports stated that the victim had credibility issues due to mental and/or physical health problems, and 2 reports stated that witnesses refused to come forward.

Fifteen (36.6%) reports did not include an explicit reason why the victim wanted to drop the charges but did include other narrative information that we content coded in an attempt to shed light on possible reasons for victims’ decisions not to pursue. Of these 15 reports, 10 (66.6%) reported that the victim failed to show for a scheduled interview and/or did not return phone calls about the case, which was perceived as an indication of the victims’ desire to no longer pursue the case. Moreover, in 3 reports (20.0%), police officers explicitly stated that victims did not cooperate with the investigation, citing the victim refused a medical exam or refused to answer questions about the incident. In addition, 5 (33.3%) reports stated concerns regarding victim credibility and 3 (20.0%) reports stated that there was a lack of evidence. Furthermore, 2 (13.3%) reports stated that the victim sought other formal help for the sexual assault and 2 (13.3%) reports stated that witnesses refused to provide a statement. These percentages exceed 100% given that some incident reports had multiple additional narratives.

Discussion

Previous research found that a minority of cases of reported sexual assault result in an arrest, lending support to the belief that attrition rates are highest at the beginning of the process, and, of the cases that did not result in an arrest, most were cited as “arrest not desired” (Fitzgerald, 2006, p. 4). Greenberg and Ruback (1992) found that 11% of victims who had contact with the criminal justice system after the initial report stated that they were encouraged by the police or prosecutors to drop the charges. In addition, Kerstetter (1990) referred to victims’ decision to not pursue as far more complex than simply “victim volition” (p. 307). These studies and others led us to inquire about the earliest stage of case processing to learn more about the reporting of victims’ decisions in the official case file. Specifically, given the high drop-out rate of sexual assault cases, we were interested in uncovering reporting practices in these cases.

Thus, we examined the following research questions: (1) To what extent do police incident reports indicate that the victim wishes to drop the case? and (2) What are the reasons documented in police incident reports for victims’ desire to drop the case? Our analyses revealed a number of important findings. First, we found that in approximately one third of cases, police reported that victims no longer wished to pursue the case. Prior research, which examined cases at various points in time across the justice process, reported approximately half of all adult female sexual assault cases end with the victims’ decision to no longer pursue the case (Anders & Christopher, 2011; Holmstrom & Burgess, 1978; Kelly, Lovett, & Regan, 2005; Kerstetter & Van Winkle, 1990; Tellis & Spohn, 2008). Unlike these earlier studies, the present study focused on the earliest point in case processing. Our findings are consistent with the few other studies to date that have reported this type of data (Holmstrom & Burgess, 1978; Tellis & Spohn, 2008). It is important to keep in mind, however, that the extent to which victims truly wished to drop the case, felt pressured to do so by police, or were inaccurately perceived by police as wishing to drop their case is unclear from these data and warrant future investigation.

Regarding documentation practices, we found that incident reports contain a variety of terms such as “victim declines to prosecute,” “victim chooses to terminate the case,” “victim does not want to press charges,” “victim does not want to pursue,” “victim does not want to go forward,” and “victim unwilling to cooperate.” These terms were used interchangeably by police officers within the same department as well as in departments across the state. As the first permanent record of an alleged assault, the incident report would benefit from clarity of meaning and definition of terms for several reasons. First, accurate reporting could assist with better understanding how information is communicated between officer and victim, thus clarifying potential areas for intervention with the victim and law enforcement. Second, as the incident report moves from responding officer to detective, decisions are made regarding the potential for further investigatory efforts. Clearly defined terms and documentation of interactions with the victim would be crucial for determining next steps in case processing.

Moreover, results demonstrated that only 30% of the reports contained explicit statements about why the victim chose to not pursue, no reason was stated in 32% of the reports, and implicit reasons appeared in 37% of the cases. The fact that over half of police incident reports lacked explicit documentation or contained only minimal information is alarming given the importance of reporting as a first step in case processing. It is likely, in some cases, the officer had no further contact with the victim due to inability to locate her, which is often referred to in police reports as “victim uncooperative.” However, it is also likely that in a number of cases, the officer may have some knowledge about why a victim dropped the case but did not record a reason.

Implied reasons for dropping the case included victim’s failure to respond to the officers’ attempt to make contact with the victim, so victim refusal to answer questions or have a medical examination, victim credibility issues from the perspective of the officer, lack of evidence, the victim sought other formal help for the sexual assault, and, in two reports, witnesses refused to provide a statement. It was interesting to see that this type of information, largely focused around lack of evidence and victim credibility, was mentioned in the same narrative section of the incident report that noted the victim did not wish to pursue charges. It is possible that because of lack of evidence and victim credibility issues, police dissuaded victims from continuing with the process, which would be consistent with previous research (Greenberg & Ruback, 1992).

Whereas two thirds of the cases contained no or minimal contextual information regarding police perceptions of the victim wishing to drop the case, one third of cases did include reasons. Police reported that a victim may choose to not pursue a case for a number of seemingly disparate reasons. For example, reports included victims’ reasons that were specifically associated with the justice process, physical and psychological reasons associated with the assault, health issues unrelated to the assault, and a number of reasons associated with the suspect such as victims’ fear, an ongoing divorce, and wanting to pursue other charges against the suspect. It is clear that this information is important for policy makers to consider in designing a system that is victim-centered.

It is important to note that decision making regarding whether or not to file a report or drop the case does not rest solely with victims even when they intend to move forward through the justice system. Indeed, our data revealed statements made by law enforcement concerning victim credibility, or lack of evidence, either of which conditions if communicated to victims even indirectly could have prompted the victims’ desire to drop their case. Our findings also suggest that while some victims may report the assault to police with the intention of moving forward, others may have had alternate reasons for reporting to law enforcement. For example, some victims sought law enforcement’s assistance in either warning the suspect or helping to remove him from her home. Some victims chose to pursue other charges against the suspect. Law enforcement noted that some victims chose to seek help from noncriminal justice organizations, such as rape crisis centers, which also supports prior studies that have found that rape crisis centers and supportive advocates can be a beneficial outlet for victims (see Decker & Naugle, 2009, for a review).