Circumstances, policing, and attrition of multiple compared to single perpetrator rape cases within the South African criminal justice system

Abstract

Abstract Background Research into the circumstances of rape, and criminal justice system responses, is pivotal to informing prevention and improving the likelihood of justice for victims. In this paper, we explore the differences in the circumstances of multiple-perpetrator rapes (MPRs) and single-perpetrator rapes (SPRs), their case management, and attrition, and describe areas for improvemensuplt around rape response within the South African criminal justice system. Methods The sample comprised 3952 rape cases reported to the South African Police Services (SAPS) in 2012, selected through a multi-stage random sampling of 172 police stations from a total of 1164 police stations in the nine provinces, followed by the random selection of cases from each station’s case list. Data were abstracted from police dockets, medico-legal examination forms, charge sheets, and trial transcripts. MPRs were defined as cases in which more than one perpetrator had sexual contact with the victim during a single incident, i.e., sexually assaulted or raped. Descriptive statistics and Chi-square tests for associations were used to compare MPRs and SPRs in circumstances of the rape, case management, and attrition. Results Seventeen percent of cases were MPRs. MPRs were comparably more violent crimes with a higher frequency of aggressive tactics employed by perpetrators, for example, abductions, firearms use, and threats to kill. Overall, cases were often poorly handled by police, and there were deviations from standard policing and investigation procedures; we found more evidence of this with MPRs compared to SPRs. MPR cases were most likely to have been closed by police due to undetected perpetrators in combination with other victim reasons. The weaker investigations of MPRs were associated with higher attrition rates compared to SPRs, firstly at the police investigation and subsequent stages. Conclusions The findings confirm differences in case management, patterns of attrition and trajectories of MPRs compared to SPRs. In an overall context of high rape case attrition and impunity for perpetrators, MPR victims are even less likely to see justice served than SPR victims. There needs to be much more effective supervision of rape case investigations by SAPS, particularly in MPR cases. Continual investigator training strengthened supervision and better resourcing are necessary to improve MPRs detection and convictions in adherence to the Directives for rape policing.