A Case of Convicted Rapists

I read in this journal that seek mainly by interviews with convicted familiar offenders and contrast groups is historic in order to understand why and how internal violence against women occurred (1).Because masculinity has been assumed to be superior, and knowledge reflects on male dominated mankind reflecting the views of patriarchal beliefs, feminists need to study and understand the reality of sexually tough men (2, 3).I noted that there are numerous hindrances in determine number and characteristics of rapists because only the classic and violent cases are reported. To counter this, research would require interviews with the group of unreported rapists but this would again place the police detective as an accomplice because of protecting the rapists identity (6, 7).Information acquired in therapy is unreliable due to prisoners mistrust of prison officials as they feel it might be used against them in a loose hearing (10-11). Traditional masculinity behaviour suggested t he men would respond plusly to a female interviewer and despite security risks, professional self took priority before the personal self in order to collect applicable data (12, 13).I understood that to get good data, a good operative relationship, the use of non-threatening background information and long interviews was crucial (15).Rapport was necessary in creating trust, confidentiality and mutual respect and this appealed to even the hardcore felons who were ready to talk to a non-judgmental outsider if just to break prison monotony. While neutrality should not be portrayed as approval, disagreements can result in close of rapport and jeopardize future interviews. Opinion should be put forrad candidly but carefully to leave the participant feeling positive about the interview (16-18).I learned that many prisoners present unique problems in regard to obtaining voluntary informed consent and mentioning that they were rapists would cause the men mortify and embarrassment (19- 21). Explanations on risks, safeguards and the prisoners rights were given as well as allowance to confirm the validity of the interview data (23-25).Research showed that prisoners are prone to lying, deceit and manipulation in order to better their chances of parole because their approval depends on staff researchers assessment. While some rapists admitted to raping, they played down their use of force, others did not believe their actions constituted rape and the rest completely denied any sexual contact with the victims and pleaded mistaken identity (27-28).I also noted that while cooperation from the res publica Department of Corrections and the prison staff was excellent, riots and lockups, scheduling mishaps, inmate transfers and absenteeism, electrical energy blackouts and the occasional lack of an interview room were some of the obstacles encountered while at times unfavourable weather and lack of air conditioning do the longer interviews almost unbearable (29-30).Refere ncesDiana, s. (1990). A glimpse inside. Understanding sexual harassment a study of convicted rapists. Rout ledge, New York.