| The Rape Reform Movement | p. 15 |
| Criticisms of Traditional Rape Law | p. 17 |
| Reforming the Law | p. 20 |
| Definitional Changes | p. 21 |
| Consent Standard | p. 23 |
| Corroboration Requirement | p. 24 |
| Evidence of Victim's Sexual Conduct | p. 25 |
| Previous Research | p. 29 |
| Rape Law Reform in Six Jurisdictions | p. 33 |
| Strong Reforms - Michigan, Illinois, and Pennsylvania | p. 36 |
| Weak Reforms - Texas, Georgia, and Washington, D.C. | p. 40 |
| Rape Shield Laws | p. 41 |
| Strong Shield Laws | p. 41 |
| Weak Shield Laws | p. 44 |
| Procedures for Determining Relevance | p. 45 |
| Summary of Law Reforms | p. 46 |
| Contextual Differences and Case-Processing Variations | p. 49 |
| Case-Screening Procedures | p. 50 |
| The Courtroom Work Group | p. 52 |
| The Judiciary | p. 53 |
| Prosecution and Defense | p. 56 |
| Outside Influences | p. 64 |
| Courtroom Work Groups and the Rape Law Reforms | p. 65 |
| Case Processing and Case Outcomes | p. 67 |
| Arrest and Indictment Rates | p. 68 |
| Conviction Rates and Case Outcomes | p. 70 |
| Case Processing and the Rape Law Reforms | p. 73 |
| The Instrumental Effects of Reform | p. 75 |
| Analytical Framework | p. 80 |
| The "History" Threat | p. 80 |
| Controls for the History Threat | p. 81 |
| Data Sources | p. 81 |
| Case Selection | p. 82 |
| Dependent Variables | p. 84 |
| Interrupted Time-Series Analysis | p. 85 |
| Impact on Case Processing | p. 86 |
| Detroit | p. 86 |
| Chicago | p. 92 |
| Philadelphia | p. 95 |
| Washington, D.C | p. 96 |
| Atlanta | p. 97 |
| Houston | p. 98 |
| Positive Impact | p. 100 |
| Reports | p. 101 |
| Indictments | p. 102 |
| Officials' Evaluations of Rape Cases | p. 107 |
| Assessments of the Importance of Evidence | p. 111 |
| Extralegal Factors and Decision Making | p. 111 |
| Officials' Assessments of Evidence | p. 112 |
| Officials' Evaluations of Evidence and the Rape Law Reforms | p. 115 |
| Responses to Rape Case Vignettes | p. 116 |
| The Vignettes | p. 118 |
| Analytic Procedure | p. 120 |
| Admitting Sexual History Evidence | p. 120 |
| Likelihood of Conviction | p. 124 |
| Sentence Severity | p. 128 |
| The Impact of Reforms on the Evaluation of Evidence | p. 129 |
| Officials' Attitudes toward Sexual History Evidence | p. 131 |
| Controversy Surrounding the Rape Shield Laws | p. 134 |
| The Women's Rights Project Proposal | p. 135 |
| Hypothetical Cases | p. 137 |
| Analytic Techniques | p. 139 |
| Results - Evidence Would Be Admitted | p. 140 |
| Jurisdictional Differences | p. 143 |
| Evidentiary Differences | p. 144 |
| Results - Evidence Should Be Admitted | p. 147 |
| Rape Shield Laws and Officials' Judgments of Relevance | p. 149 |
| Influence of Variations in the Laws | p. 151 |
| Influence of Informal Norms | p. 152 |
| The Impact of Rape Shield Laws | p. 155 |
| The Limits of Legal Reforms | p. 157 |
| Definitional Changes | p. 160 |
| Elimination of Corroboration and Resistance Requirements | p. 161 |
| Requirements Not Serious Hurdles | p. 162 |
| Importance of Corroboration and Resistance Evidence | p. 163 |
| Rape Shield Laws | p. 164 |
| Inherent Limitations of the Rape Shield Laws | p. 164 |
| Implementation of the Rape Shield Laws | p. 166 |
| Strong versus Weak Shield Laws | p. 170 |
| Reform in Detroit | p. 171 |
| Conclusion | p. 173 |
| Victim-Oriented Reforms | p. 173 |
| Value of Symbolic Change | p. 175 |
| References | p. 177 |
| Appendix | p. 181 |
| Index | p. 189 |
| Table of Contents provided by Blackwell. All Rights Reserved. |