What do we know about rape myths and juror decision making?
| Author | Fiona Leverick |
| Published date | 01 July 2020 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1365712720923157 |
| Date | 01 July 2020 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
What do we know about rape
myths and juror decision making?
Fiona Leverick
School of Law, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
Abstract
This paper presents overwhelming evidence that prejudicial and false beliefs held by jurors
about rape affect their evaluation of the evidence and their decision making in rape cases. The
paper draws together for the first time the available evidence from both quantitative and
qualitative studies (most of which are not found in law journals, but rather in scientific outlets,
most commonly those focusing on experimental psychology). The quantitative research
demonstrates that mock jurors’ scores on so-called ‘rape myth scales’ are significant predictors
of their judgments about responsibility, blame and (most importantly) verdict. The qualitative
research indicates that jurors frequently express problematic views about how ‘real’ rape
victims would behave and what ‘real’ rape looks like during mock jury deliberations and that
even those who score relatively low on abstract rape myth scales can express prejudicial beliefs
when deliberating in a particular case. The studies vary in terms of their realism, but it is
important to note that some of the studies reported here were highly realistic trial recon-
structions, involving representative samples of jurors drawn from the community, live trial
reconstructions, evidence-in-chief and cross-examination, accurate legal directions and
deliberation in groups. The review concludes by examining the evidence on whether juror
education—whether in the form of judicial directions or expert evidence—might be effective
in addressing problematic attitudes.
Keywords
juries, rape myths, sexual offences, victims
Introduction
The decision making of juries in rape and other sexual offence cases
1
is an issue that has attracted a great
deal of attention. There is a concern, in particular, that prejudicial beliefs and attitudes that jurors take
Corresponding author:
Fiona Leverick, School of Law, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QQ, UK.
E-mail: Fiona.Leverick@glasgow.ac.uk
1. The remainder of the review will generally refer to ‘rape cases’ but the findings are applicable to a far wider set of cases
involving sexual offences.
The International Journalof
Evidence & Proof
2020, Vol. 24(3) 255–279
ªThe Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1365712720923157
journals.sagepub.com/home/epj
into the deliberation room (sometimes referred to as rape myths) impact on their evaluation of evidence
and determination of verdict (Conaghan and Russell, 2014). This concern is some times dismissed,
pointing to a lack of evidence of any problems (Reece, 2013). This paper supplies the missing evidence.
It draws together for the first time the findings of the relevant studies (most of which are not reported in
law journals, but are found instead in scientific outlets, most commonly those focusing on experimental
psychology).
The focus of the paper is not the extent to which the jury eligible population holds prejudicial attitudes
towards rape victims (although this might become apparent as a side issue of the discussion). Rather it is
to examine the way in which such attitudes might affect juror decision making. Two types of studies are
relevant in this respect: quantitative and qualitative. Quantitative studies attempt to correlate partici-
pants’ scores on a scale designed to measure their attitudes towards rape victims in the abstract (so-called
rape myth attitude scales) with a dependent variable in a concrete case, such as verdict choice or witness
credibility. Qualitative studies examine the way in which prejudicial attitudes towards rape victims arise
in jury deliberations.
This paper argues that there is overwhelming evidence that rape myths affect the way in which jurors
evaluate evidence in rape cases. The quantitative research demonstrates that jurors’ scores on rape myth
attitude scales designed to measure prejudicial attitudes towards rape victims are significantly related to
judgments in individual cases, both in terms of the degree of blame attributed to a rape victim and—more
importantly—views about what the verdict should be. The qualitative research shows that false and
prejudicial beliefs about rape victims are commonly expressed during jury deliberations and that even
jurors who do not score highly on scale s that measure attitudes in the abstra ct can express highly
problematic views when discussing a concrete case.
Before proceeding, it needs to be noted that the focus of this review is limited to rape involving a
female complainant
2
/victim and a male defendant
3
/perpetrator. The literature on attitudes towards male
rape victims is far less extensive.
4
The research that does exist points in the same direction as the studies
involving a female complainant/victim, but there is no doubt that this is an area that would benefit from
further research.
In the remainder of the paper, the next section briefly examines the scales that have been designed to
measure attitudes towards rape victims. The following section discusses the research methods that have
been used in the studies presented here. The next sections present the findings of the quantitative studies
and the findings of the qualitative studies. The final section reviews the limited body of research that has
examined juror education (whether in the form of judicial direction or expert evidence) as a means of
addressing false beliefs.
Attitudes towards rape victims and instruments to measure them
The focus of this paper is on false and prejudicial beliefs about rape and rape victims and how these
might impact upon the way in which jurors approach the evidence in rape cases. Such beliefs can broadly
be divided into four categories:
5
2. Some of the research has been undertaken in Scotland, where the equivalent term is ‘complainer’ and this will be used when
discussing the Scottish research.
3. The Scottish equivalent is ‘the accused’ and this will be used when discussing the Scottish research.
4. Only four studies in peer reviewed journals were identified that have examined the link between scores on rape myth attitude
scales and judgments about responsibility where the victim/complainant is male: studies 3 and 4 in Klement et al. (2019)
(studies 1 and 2 involved female victims and are discussed below); Sleath and Bull (2010); Davies et al. (2012).
5. These are adapted from Bohner et al. (2009: 19) and Smith and Skinner (2017: 443). There is some overlap between the
categories.
256 The International Journal of Evidence & Proof 24(3)
To continue reading
Request your trial