Understanding and minimising the impact of rape myths on juror decision-making

Sexual violence is a global problem at epidemic proportions which urgently requires effective responses from criminal justice systems. However, most victim-survivors of sexual violence in the UK are being denied justice, as evidenced by consistently declining conviction numbers despite record levels of reporting. Undoubtedly, the justice gap presents a complex problem with devastating impacts on the victim-survivors, with the widescale acceptance of rape myths affecting jury decision-making frequently identified as a contributing factor. The literature has extensively illustrated the influence of rape myth endorsement on evaluations of complainants and verdict decisions, with calls for jury education to be implemented to minimise their negative impact. However, the lack of an articulated theoretical model explaining how rape myth acceptance impacts juror decision-making has stunted the development of a focused educational intervention for jurors in cases of sexual violence.

Thus, this thesis presents five empirical studies to address these aims and test the potential of a short comprehensive educational video for jurors with the potential for implementation in rape trials across the UK. Specifically, these studies identified and assessed suitable and realistic trial materials, examined the fit and validity of the proposed theoretical model using advanced structural equation modelling techniques and finally, evaluated the effectiveness of the newly developed educational video in reducing the impact of rape myths on juror verdicts and complainant evaluations.

Findings from these studies suggest that (a) the victim-focused rape myth factors victims lie, victims ask for it and not really rape influence jurors' verdict decisions indirectly via complainant credibility, responsibility, and empathy evaluations, respectively; (b) the proposed theoretical model is robust in explaining juror decisions when there are changes in the rape case presented; (c) complainant credibility judgements are the most malleable element in the model, in terms of both case variation and intervention success and, finally, (d) the impact of rape myths on juror decision-making can be attenuated with a short video intervention. The implications of these findings for research and the UK criminal justice system are discussed, alongside methodological limitations.