The Effectiveness of Victim Resistance Strategies Against Stranger Child Abduction: An

The effectiveness of victim resistance strategies against stranger child abduction: An analysis of attempted and completed cases

Key words:Child Abduction; Stranger; Victim Resistance; Attempted and Completed Offences; Child Safety

Abstract

Existing research, policy information, and materials intended to teach children assume that certain behaviours will protect children in the event that a stranger tries to abduct them. However, there is little empirical basis for these assumptions. This article examines the effectiveness of strategies thought to increase the likelihood that a child will be able to resist an attempted stranger child abduction event. 78 cases of stranger child abduction that occurred in the United Kingdom between 1988 and 2014, including 25 attempted cases and 53 completed cases,were examined in order to ascertain the relative prevalence of various resistance types, and to assesstheir effectiveness of 6 key resistance strategies based on whether the presence or absence affected the outcome of the abduction.

Results show that direct, unequivocal verbal resistance, running away, and a composite approach where the victim runs away, calls for help and reports the offence were highly effective means of resisting an offender, whereas physical resistance, indirect verbal resistance and non-resistance were not effective. Female victims were almost twice as likely to employ any kind of resistance strategy against an offender as male victims. The implications of these findings for augmenting ways in which children are taught about safety are discussed.

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study isto evaluate which behaviours by the victimsof stranger child abduction correlate with how effectively victims are able to resist being abducted. A stranger is defined asa personthe victim has had no apparent previous contact or interaction with (Boudreaux, Lord, & Durtra, 1998; Finkelhor, Hammer & Sedlak, 2002). Abduction is defined as any unlawful movement or detention of a child, whether this is attempted or completed (Child Abduction Act, 1984; Finkelhor et al., 2002). Although UK child abduction and related laws tend to refer to victims aged 16 years or under (see NewissFairbrother,2004), this study defines a child as anyone under the age of 18 years in order to adhere to domestic and international guidelines relating to child welfare and protection (HM Government, 2015; European Commission, 2013).Effectiveness refers to the degree to which something is successful in producing a desired result, in this case referring to whether resistance prevents or minimizes the abduction.

Child abduction of any kind is a low incidence offence, although, recent findings in the UKhave shown that an increasing number of offences are coming to the attention of authorities (Newiss & Collie, 2015; Newiss, 2016). Proportionately, the abduction of a child by a stranger had been thought to occur relatively infrequently compared to other types of abduction, constituting a fraction of all abduction events (Finkelhor, HotalingSedlak, 1992; Finkelhor & Ormrod,2000). However, recent studies have revealed that stranger child abductions occur at a higher rate compared to other abduction offences than had been previously found, with rates indicating that strangers are responsible for as high as 40% of all abduction offences reported in the UK (NewissTraynor, 2013).As such, it has become more desirable than ever to understand ways in which children targeted by strangers can effectively prevent or resist an abduction carried out against them.

When a child is targeted by a stranger abductor, it is not a foregone conclusion that they will in fact be abducted. Recent findings analysing stranger child abduction in the UK have revealed that up to 75% of stranger child abductions are attempted cases where the child is not abducted (NewissTraynor, 2013). Furthermore,Finkelhor, Hammer & Sedlak(2002)found that the vast majority, over 99%, of abduction cases end with no physical harm to the victim. These findings suggests that even when a child is taken or detained by a strangerthere is still opportunity for the child to escape, thereby preventing or avoiding further physicalharm. This chance of resistance or escape is of critical importance as although injury is rare, the potential physical harm a child can suffer in these circumstances is immense, particularly if the abduction is allowed to continue for any significant duration (Hanfland, Keppel & Weis, 2006).

Theeffectiveness of victim resistance in deterring or minimizing a full attack has been the subject of previous research in relation to other crimesbesides child abduction. These areas of study include robbery (Cook, 1986; KleckDeLone, 1993), carjacking (e.g., Copes, Hochstetler & Cherbonneau, 2012), and violent assaults (e.g., Fritzon & Ridgway, 2001). The most widely studied area involves rape and sexual assault (e.g., Kleck & Sayles, 1990; Woodhams, Hollin, Bull & Cooke, 2011), with a small number of studies having examined resistance in child sexual abuse cases (Leclerc, Wortley & Smallbone, 2011; Elliott, Browne & Kilcoyne, 1995). Unfortunately, there is a lack of information pertaining to the nature, role or prevalence of victim resistance in stranger child abduction cases.

The focus of most of this research is on the interactional element of offending, i.e., how the responses of the victim influences the behaviour of the offender, and vice-versa (Fritzon & Ridgway, 2001).Overall, the findings in these studies suggest that the role of resistance is not straightforward. It is not always the case that heightened resistance results in increased chance of the victim’s escape, and there is no exact calculus whereby the effects of resistance can be predicted. Some studies found that victim resistance is actually more likely to cause the offender to become more aggressive.Cusson (1998) refers to the process of ‘negative reciprocity’, where resistance only leads to heightened aggression or control on the offender’s part. In the worst cases, this can result in a cyclical process of heightened resistance and heightened aggression in return that can culminate with the victim being killed.Verbal resistance in particular has been identified as having a tendency to increase offender aggression in stranger rapes (Ullman & Knight, 1993). Although logical, this runs very much counter to mainstream perceptions of child abduction, where it is the norm to instruct children to say‘no’. This is based on the understanding that such action can facilitate escape (Miltenberger & Olson, 2006). Thus, it is a matter of priority to establish whether such resistance can have such detrimental outcomes for child abduction cases.

Not all studies relating to stranger rape report that resistance had negative outcomes for the victim. Bachman and Carmody (1994) found that both physical and verbal resistance resulted in lessened risk of injury in stranger assaults compared to cases where victims did not resist. That said, those same behaviourscorrelated with greater harm when the victim knew the offender. Quinsey and Upfold (1985) found that screaming and calling for help was strongly associated with avoiding being raped and negatively associated with being injured when victimized by strangers at outdoor locations. This finding is far more likely to be compatible with stranger child abduction, where it has been consistently found that offences are far more likely to occur outdoors (FinkelhorOrmrod, 2000; Miller, Kurlycheck, Hansen & Wilson, 2008; Gallagher et al., 2008). The finding that calling for aid is a useful resistance strategy also makes sense from a rational choice perspective. If we accept that there is a risk-reward analysis to offending perspective, it follows that offenders are less likely to engage in offending when risk of detection and interruption or when there is heightened chance of third party intervention (Cornish & Clarke, 1986).

It must be stressed that the overlap between the present study and the experiences of adult rape victims is imperfect. Most of the studies mentioned above dealt with adult victims, and only a small number examine stranger offences specifically. Still, the findings regarding the effect of resistance have been somewhat mixed in terms of how it effects on offender behaviour and likelihood that the victim can avoid harm.Such results make it desirable to engage in similar inquiries into how consistent the effects or resistance are with child victims of stranger abduction. A further example emerges on a careful reading of the resistance literature pertaining to resistance in rape. The verbal resistance being referred to is that employed as the rape was underway (Woodhams et al., 2012). This means that this literature may not directly overlap with the processes that occur during child abduction since abduction tends to occur prior to a further assault, not during it. This highlights how the literature on rape and sexual assault of adults, even by strangers, may have limited transferability to discussions of stranger child abduction.

Given this arguable lack of overlap, then, it is of concern that very few studies have dealt with the role of resistance by child victims. Those which have done so focused on the accounts of offenders involved in grooming type offences against children, which is of different character to stranger child abduction, but still highly useful. Notably, Leclerc, Wortley and Smallbone (2011) examinedcases of child sexual abuse. To use child abduction terminology, all of these cases would be considered acquaintance abductions since the victims and offenders had prior contact and the offences occurred over an extended period of time. Leclerc et. Al’s (2011) study found that the main forms of resistance used by victimscould be categorized as physical resistance, non-forceful verbal resistance, and forceful verbal resistance. Of all of these, they found forceful verbal resistance, in particular saying ‘no’, was by far the most effective resistance strategy. Non-forceful means, such as crying or making indirect objections, were found to be far less effective, either being ignored or overcome by offenders in most cases, and not preventing the abuse. Physical resistance, such as fighting, were the least effective, only seeming to prevent around 1 in every 10 cases. Physical resistance in particular was associated with offenders becoming violent. These findings are somewhat reflective of themes that emerged in the studies pertaining to adult victims.

It should be kept in mind that, in missing persons and child abduction literature, stranger child abductions traditionally are studied separately from grooming, as grooming is associated with family or acquaintance abduction, which has been shown to be substantively different from low-contact stranger offences (Asdigian, FinkelhorHotaling, 1995; Boudreaux et. al, 1998). As such, findings such as those from the child abuse resistance studies cannot be assumed to apply directly to stranger child abduction, as they refer to behaviours that did or did not prevent or interrupt a longer campaign of abuse by a known individual that may not even have involved an abduction component, as opposed to preventing an abduction event.

Despite problems of direct applicability, key trends can be discerned from these existing findings. The evidence from both adult resistance and grooming resistanceperspectives seems to suggest that directly saying ‘no’ to offenders is the most useful strategy in resisting them, whereas utilization of indirect verbal means and physical resistance are associated with the offence being completed.

It should be highlighted that this body ofresearch has the advantage of having been derived fromreal casesand actual events. They describe and quantify the types of resistance that were displayed in practice, and examine how the effectiveness each resistance measure in mitigating the offence.It may seem elementary to state this, but it bears mentioning because although there is a large body of literature on methods available for children to potentially use to resist child abduction and other attacks (see Newiss, 2014), very few such studies have examined how often children actually employ preventive measures or the extent to which said employment effects the offender’s decision making or the victim’s likelihood of escaping harm. The focus has, so far, been on how best to teach children to use preventive measures when confronted with abduction situations and how well they retain such teaching (e.g., Johnson, Miltenberger, Knudson, Egemo-Helm, Kelso, Jostad, & Langley, 2006; Gunby, Carr & LeBlanc, 2010), with little attention being paid to how well these behaviours promote chances of escape. In other words, the effectiveness of these strategies is largely assumed, with little in the way of an evidence base.This study hopes to act as a bridge, examining the role of victim resistance in actual stranger child abduction cases. The most common lessons, which will be explored in this paper, include: saying “No”; calling for help; running away; and physical self-defence (Johnson, et. Al, 2006; Poche, Brouwer, & Swearingen, 1981). A combined approach where multiple resistance techniques are employed at once, is a commonly depicted as the ideal response in most curriculum, and appears under the collective heading of “Run, Yell, Tell” (Newiss, 2014).

OFFENDER’S APPROACH TOWARDS THE VICTIM

In order to properly consider victim resistance, we must ascertain what it is that victims are being faced with. This necessitates examination of the perpetrator’s approach to the offence. There appears to be a divide in the type of modus operandi, which refers to the overall approach to offending (e.g., Hazelwood & Warren, 2004), utilized by the stranger child abductor. Most instances can be broadly categorized as either ‘lures’ or as ‘blitz’ attacks.

What is a ‘Lure’ and a ‘Blitz’?

In most of the pre-existing literature that discuss how children ought to behave in order to disrupt an offending incident, there appears to be an assumption that the offender will be utilizing a ‘lure’ approach (e.g., Johnson, Miltenberger, Egemo-Helm, Jostad, Flessner, & Gatheridge, 2005). A ‘lure’ type offence is sometimes called a confidence or con approach. It uses a process of rapport building and trickery in order to get the victim into a vulnerable position, whereupon the offender will carry out their offence against them (Holcombe, Wolerey, & Katzenmeyer, 1995). Leclerc,Proulx & Beauregard (2009) identify the key features of the ‘lure’ as involving the replication of “pro-social behaviours which consist of demonstrating love, attention [or] appreciation” (ibid, 2009, p8) towards the intended target, in other words, they are a non-coercive approach where friendliness is affected. Common examples of ‘lures’ include asking the child to go for a walk (a simple ‘lure’), enticing them to go with the offender with a promise of reward (incentive ‘lure’), or suggesting that a parent or teacher has authorized the offender to escort the child somewhere (authority ‘lure’) (Poche, 1981).

This focus means that most defensive measures are therefore aimed at teaching children to recognize and resist ‘lures’. Although ‘lures’ remain a highly relevant feature of stranger child abduciton, around half of the offences identified in the current research did not use ‘lures’ at all, and were more straightforward attacks, which are examined under the heading of ‘blitz’attacks.‘Blitz’ is a term commonly used in discussions of modus operandi in rape (SavinoTurvey, 2005), but can be borrowed to apply to other sexual or aggressive case. As LeBeau (1987) puts it, in adapting the work of Burgess and Holstrom,“[t]he essence of the blitz approach is that the rape occurs out of the blue and without prior interaction between the assailant and victim.’20 The offender immediately appliesthreat and force to subdue his victim” (LeBeau, 1987, p312). Additionally, it can be possible for the offender to have a very brief interaction with the offender to close the gap or to disarm them before launching into an assault- this would still be a ‘blitz’ style attack (Beauregard, RossmoProulx, 2007).

In summary, our understanding of the role of victim resistance in stranger child abduction cases involving either modus operandi is limited. In order to bolster our understanding of victim resistance, and to capitalize on what we do know about the character of stranger child abduction, this study will examine whether the resistance factors identified above have differing effectiveness when used against both ‘lure’ abductions as well as ‘blitz’ abductions.

This article seeks to establish the prevalence of key victim resistance strategies particularly direct verbal resistance, non-direct verbal resistance, physical resistance, calling for help, and running away. It also aims to examine the extent to which these factors are associated with the outcome of the case. The key measure is therefore the effectiveness of resistance techniques. Effectiveness is ascertained according to the extent to which the presence of the resistance technique is associated with the outcome of an offence being attempted rather completed..

METHOD

The study is based on secondary data analysis, where anexamination of newspaper articles and legal cases was carried out in order to compile a database of stranger child abduction offenders whose crimes had taken place in the UK. All included cases were accompanied by a legal conviction in the UK courts between 1988 and 2014. The majority of cases occurred after 2000 (85%).

Legal databases, namely Westlaw and Lexis, were used to gather legal cases utilizing various combinations of the search terms ‘Stranger’, ‘Child’, ‘Abduction’, ‘Sexual’, ‘Assault’ and ‘Kidnap’. The same keywords, with the additional terms ‘Charged’, ‘Guilty’and ‘Convicted’, were applied to a search of media databases, Lexis, and public domain search engines. Additional searches were carried out within the homepages of the media outlets themselves. The data utilized consisted of transcripts of legal cases, and news articles that had been reported online at national and local outlets.Ultimately, 78 cases of stranger child abduction were identified where there was sufficient data for analysis, with around twice that number being excluded due to lack of information or inconsistency between sources.

In order to ensure an acceptable level of corroboration, only cases where an identifiable individual was convicted of an offence were included, the implications of which are discussed below. The conviction did not have to be for the precise legal offence of child abduction or kidnap; given that the UK has rules of primacy that mean a more serious offence might cause the specific charge to be lost. As such, inclusion was based on behaviour that involved taking or detaining, or clearly making an attempt to take or detain a child rather than on conviction for a specific offence.

The information gathered was collated to producenarrative accounts for each case. These accounts were then used to count the instances of each type of victim resistance that occurred, which was coded quantitatively using SPSS.A combined total of 9 variables relevant to victim resistance were identified for coding and analysis. This included the victim's gender, whether the offence was attempted or completed, the approach used by the offender utilizing the aforementioned ‘lure’ and ‘blitz’ distinction, and 6 variables relating to resistance.