Convicted Rapists Vocabulary of Motives. Scully Marolla

Convicted Rapists’ Vocabulary of Motive: Excuses and Justifications

Authors: Diana Scully, Joseph Marolla, Virginia Commonwealth University.
Focus: Analysis of the excuses and justifications used by convicted rapists to explain their actions and the impact on their self-perception as either non-rapists or "ex-rapists."

The study explores how rapists use a vocabulary of motive to justify their actions, viewing their crimes as situationally appropriate and portraying victims as culpable.
Traditional psychiatric models frame rape as a symptom of a disordered personality, but this fails to capture typical behavioral patterns among rapists.
Less than 5% of rapists were psychotic at the time of their crime, suggesting that social learning plays a significant role.

Definition: A linguistic device used by offenders to reinterpret their deviant actions as culturally acceptable.
Inspired by Mills (1940), this concept highlights how wrong-doers disavow their deviance and maintain a normal identity.
Excuses vs. Justifications:
- Excuses: Admit the act was wrong but deny full responsibility (e.g., based on accident, biological urges).
- Justifications: Accept responsibility but argue that their actions were appropriate under the circumstances.
Scott and Lyman's (1968) concept of "aligning actions" relates to situational adjustments made by actors in problematic situations.

The study involved interviews with 114 incarcerated male rapists in Virginia.
Sample characteristics: 46% white, 54% black; ages ranged from 18 to 60.
Most participants had extensive criminal records beyond sexual offenses (e.g., burglary, robbery).
Participants were volunteers and the interviews were non-random but sought to capture diverse backgrounds among rapists.

Admitters (n = 47): Recognized their actions as rape and expressed regret.
Deniers (n = 35): Rejected the label of rapist, either by denying sexual contact or by downplaying the nature of their actions.
Shared Themes: Both admitters and deniers commonly argued that women often enjoyed being raped or bore some responsibility.

Women as Seductresses: Victims are portrayed as provocative, reducing accountability for the rapist.
“No” Means “Yes”: Deniers often claimed that initial resistance from victims did not invalidate consent.
Victims Eventually Enjoyed It: Some deniers believed that once the act began, victims relaxed and enjoyed it.
Nice Girls Don’t Get Raped: Deniers used victims’ reputations to justify their actions, asserting that "bad" women deserve their fate.
Minor Wrongdoing: Many deniers pleaded guilty to lesser charges, claiming their acts were misguided rather than criminal.

Admitters acknowledged the moral reprehensibility of rape but used excuses to explain their behavior as compelled by outside forces.

Use of Alcohol and Drugs: Admitters often claimed substances contributed to their inability to prevent the crime.
Emotional Problems: Many admitted their actions resulted from personal psychological issues or significant life stressors.
Nice Guy Image: Admitters attempted to present themselves as generally good individuals despite their crime, expressing regret and sorrow for their victims.

Both admitters and deniers reflect normative cultural beliefs that dehumanize women, seeing them as sexual objects rather than autonomous individuals.
The medical model of viewing rapists as sick reduces the complexity of rape to individual pathology rather than acknowledging social and cultural influences.

The study reveals how cultural perspectives and social learning shape the identities and motives of convicted rapists.
Differences in the justifications and excuses between admitters and deniers illustrate distinct ways that men negotiate their identities post-crime.
The findings highlight the necessity of a broader understanding of the social contexts that facilitate rape, beyond the medical perspective.