A Case of Convicted Rapists

I read in this journal that question mainly by consultations with convicted sexual offenders and contrast free radicals is important in secern to understand why and how sexual violence against women occurred (1).Because masculinity has been assumed to be superior, and knowledge reflects on male dominated universe reflecting the views of patriarchal beliefs, feminists compulsion to study and understand the reality of sexually violent men (2, 3).I say that there are numerous hindrances in determining number and characteristics of rapists because sole(prenominal) the classic and violent cases are reported. To counter this, research would require interviews with the group of unreported rapists barely this would again place the researcher as an partner because of protecting the rapists identity (6, 7).Information acquired in therapy is unreliable ascribable to prisoners mistrust of prison officials as they feel it cogency be used against them in a parole hearing (10-11). tradi tionalistic masculinity behaviour suggested the men would respond positively to a female interviewer and despite security risks, professional self took priority before the individualized self in order to collect relevant data (12, 13).I unsounded that to get good data, a good working relationship, the use of non-threatening stress information and long interviews was crucial (15).Rapport was necessary in creating trust, confidentiality and mutual obeisance and this appealed to even the hardcore felons who were ready to talk to a non-judgmental outsider if serious to break prison monotony. plot neutrality should not be visualized as approval, disagreements can result in destruction of rapport and peril future interviews. Opinion should be put forth 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 spontaneous informed consent and mentioning that they were r apists would cause the men shame and embarrassment (19-21). Explanations on risks, safeguards and the prisoners rights were given as well as permission to confirm the severeness of the interview data (23-25).Research showed that prisoners are prone to lying, fabrication 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 constitute rape and the rest completely denied any sexual contact with the victims and pleaded monstrous identity (27-28).I also noted that while cooperation from the State Department of corrections and the prison staff was excellent, riots and lockups, scheduling mishaps, inmate transfers and absenteeism, electricity b pretermitouts and the occasional lack of an interview room were some of the obstacles encountered while at times inauspicious weather and lack of air conditioning made the longer interviews almost unbearable (29-30).ReferencesDiana, s. (1990). A glimpse inside. Understanding sexual harassment a study of convicted rapists. Rout ledge, New York.