Hostname: page-component-669899f699-8p65j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-25T01:15:28.542Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Does the Controversy Matter? Comparing the Causal Determinants of the Adoption of Controversial and Noncontroversial Rape Law Reforms

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2024

Jennifer McMahon-Howard
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Do the causal determinants of legal change differ for controversial and noncontroversial laws? Using rape law reforms as an example of legal change, I answer this question via a longitudinal examination of the intrastate characteristics and interstate processes that affect the adoption of both controversial and noncontroversial rape law reforms. The results show that the adoption of partial reforms significantly decreases a state's likelihood of passing a stronger version of the reform only for controversial rape law reforms. Other factors, such as women's economic power and the interstate process of diffusion similarly affect both controversial and noncontroversial reforms. Thus, contrary to the idea that the process of diffusion operates differently for controversial reforms, the results indicate that spatial proximity negatively affects the adoption of both controversial and noncontroversial rape law reforms. These findings have important implications for theoretical explanations of legal change, research on rape law reforms, and social movement research and activism.

Type
Articles
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 45 , Issue 2 , June 2011 , pp. 401 - 434
Copyright
© 2011 Law and Society Association.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

The author wishes to thank the National Science Foundation, the American Association of University Women, and the Verizon/Hopeline Research Fellowship Program for generous financial assistance during this research. The author also wishes to thank Jody Clay-Warner as well as three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on previous drafts of this article.

References

Allison, Paul D. (1984) Event History Analysis: Regression for Longitudinal Event Data. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amenta, Edwin, et al. (2005) “Age for Leisure? Political Mediation and the Impact of the Pension Movement on U.S. Old-Age Policy,” 70 American Sociological Rev. 516–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Michelle J. (1998) “Reviving Resistance in Rape Law,” University of Illinois Law Rev. 953–1011.Google Scholar
Anderson, Michelle J. (2002) “From Chastity Requirement to Sexuality License: Sexual Consent and a New Rape Shield Law,” 70 George Washington Law Rev. 51.Google Scholar
Anderson, Michelle J. (2003) “Marital Immunity, Intimate Relationships, and Improper Inferences: A New Law on Sexual Offenses by Intimates,” 54 Hastings Law J. 1465–574.Google Scholar
Andrews, Kenneth T. (2001) “Social Movements and Policy Implementation: The Mississippi Civil Rights Movement and the War on Poverty, 1965–1971,” 66 American Sociological Rev. 71–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barclay, Scott, & Fisher, Shauna (2003) “The States and the Differing Impetus for Divergent Paths on Same-Sex Marriage, 1990–2001,” 31 Policy Studies J. 331–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrilleaux, Charles, et al. (2002) “Electoral Competition, Legislative Balance, and American State Welfare Policy,” 46 American J. of Political Science 415–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckwith, Karen, & Cowell-Meyers, Kimberly (2007) “Sheer Numbers: Critical Representation Thresholds and Women's Political Representation,” 5 Perspectives on Politics 553–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergen, Raquel K. (1996) Wife Rape: Understanding the Response of Survivors and Service Providers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berger, Ronald J., Searles, Patricia, et al. (1988) “The Dimensions of Rape Reform Legislation,” 22 Law & Society Rev. 329–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berger, Ronald J., Neuman, W. Lawrence, et al. (1991) “The Social and Political Context of Rape Law Reform: An Aggregate Analysis,” 72 Social Science Q. 221–38.Google Scholar
Berry, William D., et al. (1998) “Measuring Citizen and Government Ideology in the American States, 1960–1993,” 42 American J. of Political Science 327–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bienen, Leigh B. (1980) “Rape III—National Developments in Rape Reform Legislation,” 6 Women's Rights Reporter 170–213.Google Scholar
Brace, Paul, et al. (2002) “Public Opinion in the American States: New Perspectives Using National Survey Data,” 46 American J. of Political Science 173–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnstein, Paul (1998) “Bringing the Public Back In,” 77 Social Forces 27–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnstein, Paul, & Linton, April (2002) “The Impact of Political Parties, Interest Groups, and Social Movement Organizations on Public Policy: Some Recent Evidence and Theoretical Concerns,” 81 Social Forces 380–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caiazza, Amy (2002) “Does Women's Representation in Elected Office Lead to Women- Friendly Policy?” Publication #I910. Washington, DC: Institute for Women's Policy Research.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Call, Jack E., et al. (1991) “An Analysis of State Rape Shield Laws,” 72 Social Science Q. 774–88.Google Scholar
Carsey, Thomas M., et al. (2007) “State Legislative Election Returns, 1967–2003.” Computer file, ICPSR21480-v1. Chapel Hill Univ. of North Carolina [producer]. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research.Google Scholar
Chambliss, William J. (1993) “On Lawmaking,” in Chambliss, W. & Zatz, M., eds., Making Law: The State, the Law, and Structural Contradiction. Indianapolis: Indiana Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Chow, Gregory C., & Lin, An-loh (1976) “Best Linear Unbiased Estimation of Missing Observations in an Economic Time Series,” 71 J. of the American Statistical Association 719–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Council of State Governments (2003) Book of the States. Lexington, KY: Council of State Governments.Google Scholar
Cress, Daniel M., & Snow, David A. (2000) “The Outcomes of Homeless Mobilization: The Influence of Organization, Disruption, Political Mediation, and Framing,” 105 American J. of Sociology 1063–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornwall, Marie, et al. (2007) “Signals or Mixed Signals: Why Opportunities for Mobilization Are Not Opportunities for Policy Reform,” 12 Mobilization 239–54.Google Scholar
Crowley, Jocelyn (2006) “Moving Beyond Tokenism: Ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment and the Election of Women to State Legislatures,” 87 Social Science Q. 519–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donat, Patricia L. N., & D'Emilio, John (1992) “A Feminist Redefinition of Rape and Sexual Assault: Historical Foundations and Change,” 48 J. of Social Issues 9–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giugni, Marco, et al. (1999) How Social Movements Matter. Minneapolis: Univ. of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Grattet, Ryken, et al. (1998) “Innovation and Diffusion in U.S. Hate Crime Law,” 63 American Sociological Rev. 286–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haider-Markel, Donald P., & Meier, Kenneth J. (1996) “The Politics of Gay and Lesbian Rights: Expanding the Scope of the Conflict,” 58 J. of Politics 332–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horney, Julie, & Spohn, Cassia (1991) “Rape Law Reform and Instrumental Change in Six Urban Jurisdictions,” 25 Law & Society Rev. 117–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kane, Melinda D. (2007) “Timing Matters: Shifts in the Causal Determinants of Sodomy Law Decriminalization, 1961–1998,” 54 Social Problems 211–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, Brayden G., et al. (2005) “Winning Woman Suffrage One Step at a Time: Social Movements and the Logic of the Legislative Process,” 83 Social Forces 1211–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lanning, Steven G. (1986) “Missing Observations: A Simultaneous Approach versus Interpolation by Related Series,” 14 J. of Economic and Social Measurement 155–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Largen, Mary A. (1988) “Rape Law Reform: An Analysis,” in Burgess, A., ed., Rape and Sexual Assault II. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
MacKinnon, Catherine (1989) Toward a Feminist Theory of the State. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Marsh, Jeanne C., et al. (1982) Rape and the Limits of Law Reform. Boston: Auburn House.Google Scholar
McAdam, Doug (1982) The Political Process and the Development of Black Insurgency. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
McCammon, Holly J., et al. (2001) “How Movements Win: Gendered Opportunity Structures and U.S. Women's Suffrage Movements, 1866–1919,” 66 American Sociological Rev. 49–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGarrell, Edmund F., & Castellano, Thomas C. (1993) “Social Structure, Crime, and Politics: A Conflict Model of the Criminal Law Formation Process,” in Chambliss, W. & Zatz, M., eds., Making Law: The State, the Law, and Structural Contradiction. Indianapolis: Indiana Univ. Press.Google Scholar
McMahon-Howard, Jennifer, et al. (2010) “Criminalizing Spousal Rape: The Diffusion of Legal Reforms,” 52 Sociological Perspectives 505–31.Google Scholar
Meyer, David S. (2004) “Protest and Political Opportunities,” 30 Annual Rev. of Sociology 125–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, David S., & Minkoff, Debra C. (2004) “Conceptualizing Political Opportunity,” 82 Social Forces 1457–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myers, Daniel J. (2000) “The Diffusion of Collective Violence: Infectiousness, Susceptibility, and Mass Media Networks,” 106 American J. of Sociology 173–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, Patricia (1997) “Domestic Violence Legislation and the Police: The Role of Socio-Economic Indicators, Political Factors and Women's Political Activism on State Policy Adoption,” 18 Women and Politics 27–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Organization for Women (19592002) “National Organization for Women Records.” Schlesinger Library, Radcliffe Institute, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Quinney, Richard (1970) The Social Reality of Crime. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Ramirez, Francisco O., & McEnaney, Elizabeth H. (1997) “From Women's Suffrage to Reproduction Rights? Cross-National Considerations,” 38 International J. of Comparative Sociology 6–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Renzulli, Linda, & Roscigno, Vincent J. (2005) “Charter School Policy, Implementation, and Diffusion in the U.S.,” 78 Sociology of Education 344–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, Everett M. (2003) Diffusion of Innovation, 5th ed. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Russell, Diana E. H. (1990) Rape in Marriage. Indianapolis: Indiana Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Searles, Patricia, & Berger, Ronald J. (1987) “The Current Status of Rape Reform Legislation: An Examination of State Statutes,” 10 Women's Rights Law Reporter 25–43.Google Scholar
Soule, Sarah A., & Earl, Jennifer (2001) “The Enactment of State-Level Hate Crime Law in the United States: Intrastate and Interstate Characteristics,” 44 Sociological Perspectives 281–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soule, Sarah A., & King, Brayden G. (2006) “The Stages of the Policy Process and the Equal Rights Amendment, 1972–1982,” 111 American J. of Sociology 1871–909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soule, Sarah A.,& Olzak, Susan (2004) “When Do Movements Matter? The Politics of Contingency and the Equal Rights Amendment,” 69 American Sociological Rev. 473–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soule, Sarah A., & Zylan, Yvonne (1997) “Runaway Train? The Diffusion of State-Level Reform to A(F)DC Eligibility Requirements, 1950–1967,” 103 American J. of Sociology 733–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spohn, Cassia, & Horney, Julie (1992) Rape Law Reform: A Grassroots Revolution and Its Impact. New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strang, David, & Meyer, John W. (1993) “Institutional Conditions for Diffusion,” 22 Theory and Society 487–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strang, David, & Tuma, Nancy B. (1993) “Spatial and Temporal Heterogeneity in Diffusion,” 99 American J. of Sociology 614–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarrow, Sidney (1994) Power in Movement: Social Movements, Collective Action, and Politics. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Thomas, Sue, & Welch, Susan (1991) “The Impact of Gender on Activities and Priorities of State Legislators,” 44 The Western Political Q. 445–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
U.S. Bureau of the Census (1970) Current Population Survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of the Census.Google Scholar
U.S. Bureau of the Census (1980) Current Population Survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of the Census.Google Scholar
U.S. Bureau of the Census (1990) Current Population Survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of the Census.Google Scholar
U.S. Bureau of the Census (2000) Current Population Survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of the Census.Google Scholar
U.S. Bureau of the Census (19702006) Statistical Abstract of the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Vold, George B., et al. (2002) Theoretical Criminology, 3rd ed. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.Google Scholar