Our growing Criminology list takes a critical stance and features boundary-pushing work with innovative, research-led publications.
A particular focus of the list are books that engage with our global social challenges, both on a local and international level. We aim to publish books in a wide range of formats that will have real impact and shape public discourse.
Over the last 40 years, academics, activists and policymakers have attempted to improve police and criminal justice (CJ) responses to rape, yet attrition in rape cases continues to rise (). Rape attrition studies have increasingly scrutinised the CJ process, initially in smaller scale, local research (for example, ) and more recently through national analysis of the CJ outcomes of police reported cases (for example, ). While this has greatly enhanced understanding of why cases may drop out, the focus has increasingly been on explaining attrition in the hope of improving CJ outcomes, rather than victim-survivors’ voices and what they want from the process. Similarly, to explore attrition at the police stage, surveys have been undertaken with officers to understand their attitudes, including rape myth acceptance (for example, ); again, with a focus on improving substantive CJ outcomes. In this article we call for researchers, activists and policymakers to pause and reflect upon the political and ideological reasons behind a focus on particular research questions using particular methodologies; and whether there is a need for more victim-survivor centred, indeed person-centred, research and practice where the focus is more on procedural justice rather than substantive justice.
This commentary responds to claims that research by Cheryl Thomas ‘shows’ no problem with rape myths in English and Welsh juries. We critique the claim on the basis of ambiguous survey design, a false distinction between ‘real’ jurors and other research participants, the conflation of attitudes in relation to abstract versus applied rape myths, and misleading interpretation of the data. Ultimately, we call for a balanced appraisal of individual studies by contextualising them against the wider literature.
Technology-facilitated gender-based violence (GBV) has become an increasing issue in recent years, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic which prompted a significant rise in online activity. In addition to amplifying traditional forms of abusive behaviours such as stalking, bullying and sexual harassment, information and communication technologies have facilitated new manifestations of violence such as image-based abuse, doxing, gendertrolling, impersonation and hacking, among others. Women, children, sexual, religious and ethnic minorities, and other vulnerable groups are particularly vulnerable to elevated risks of experiencing violence. Based on findings from a scoping review, this article discusses how certain key stakeholders – identified as technology companies, government and legal systems, and social support systems – are used in the help-seeking process by those who have experienced technology-facilitated GBV. We seek to highlight particular nuances which key actors must consider when addressing technology-facilitated GBV and summarise gaps and propose recommendations to inform policy and programming efforts in low- and middle-income countries across Asia.
Gender-based violence (GBV) is a key area of concern hindering progress towards gender equality. Students at university are especially vulnerable to sexual assault and intimate partner violence, but the mental health effects of such violence (and of the burden of reporting) may not be considered during university investigations. This article provides an overview of the current guidelines for investigating GBV in university proceedings in the UK context and offers concrete recommendations to better account for mental health in such inquiries.
