Abstract
The article critically examines Washington State's Predator Law (1990). The most controversial part of the law provides for the indefinite civil commitment of “sexually violent predators.” Under the legislation, husbands who victimize their wives and children cannot be defined as predators, I argue that the social construction of predators as sick strangers is an ideological construct. This non-conspiratorial construct diverts attention from the fact that male intrafamilial violence is by far the greatest threat to the safety of women and children. These diversionary tendencies in the predator discourse constitute a hitherto scarcely publicized backlash against feminist arguments about the need for criminal laws that work in the interests of all women and children.
| Original language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 43-68 |
| Number of pages | 26 |
| Journal | Women and Criminal Justice |
| Volume | 7 |
| Issue number | 2 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - Jun 17 1996 |
Fingerprint
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Gender Studies
- Law
Cite this
Predators : The social construction of “Stranger-Danger” in Washington state as a form of patriarchal ideology. / Websdale, Neil S.
In: Women and Criminal Justice, Vol. 7, No. 2, 17.06.1996, p. 43-68.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Predators
T2 - The social construction of “Stranger-Danger” in Washington state as a form of patriarchal ideology
AU - Websdale, Neil S
PY - 1996/6/17
Y1 - 1996/6/17
N2 - The article critically examines Washington State's Predator Law (1990). The most controversial part of the law provides for the indefinite civil commitment of “sexually violent predators.” Under the legislation, husbands who victimize their wives and children cannot be defined as predators, I argue that the social construction of predators as sick strangers is an ideological construct. This non-conspiratorial construct diverts attention from the fact that male intrafamilial violence is by far the greatest threat to the safety of women and children. These diversionary tendencies in the predator discourse constitute a hitherto scarcely publicized backlash against feminist arguments about the need for criminal laws that work in the interests of all women and children.
AB - The article critically examines Washington State's Predator Law (1990). The most controversial part of the law provides for the indefinite civil commitment of “sexually violent predators.” Under the legislation, husbands who victimize their wives and children cannot be defined as predators, I argue that the social construction of predators as sick strangers is an ideological construct. This non-conspiratorial construct diverts attention from the fact that male intrafamilial violence is by far the greatest threat to the safety of women and children. These diversionary tendencies in the predator discourse constitute a hitherto scarcely publicized backlash against feminist arguments about the need for criminal laws that work in the interests of all women and children.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84937280262&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84937280262&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1300/J012v07n02_04
DO - 10.1300/J012v07n02_04
M3 - Article
VL - 7
SP - 43
EP - 68
JO - Women and Criminal Justice
JF - Women and Criminal Justice
SN - 0897-4454
IS - 2
ER -