Why we need juror education in rape and serious sexual offence cases

This paper sets out the evidence that jurors hold false beliefs about rape and rape victims (rape myths). It examines three main sources of evidence (attitude surveys, mock jury studies, and interviews with jurors who have sat on real sexual offence cases). The different research methods each have their own strengths and weaknesses, but taking the research base as a whole, the conclusion can be drawn that at least some jurors hold false beliefs about rape and rape victims. This is a cause for concern not only because these false beliefs may be preventing justified convictions in rape and serious sexual offence cases, but also because the legitimacy of the criminal justice system rests on the assumption that jurors determine cases free of false beliefs and biases. There is a clear link between scores on RMA (rape myth acceptance) scales and individual verdict choices, but the influence that individual jurors who hold false beliefs will have on the overall verdict might still be questioned. It is argued here that we cannot be confident that the deliberation process will cause individual jurors to change their views. This might not matter if, on any given jury, jurors who hold false beliefs are in a very small minority. However, even a small number of prejudiced jurors – or a single prejudiced juror – could be sufficient to prevent a justified conviction, especially in a system that requires unanimity or near unanimity for conviction. • There is extensive evidence from multiple types of research study that jurors hold false beliefs about rape and rape victims (rape myths). • Each type of study (attitude surveys, mock jury studies, and interviews with jurors who have sat on real rape and serious sexual assault cases) has methodological strengths and weaknesses, but taken together they provide a convincing body of evidence. • There is a clear link between scores on RMA (rape myth acceptance) scales and individual juror verdict choices. • This translates into a real risk that verdicts are adversely affected, as we cannot be confident that the deliberation process will cause individual jurors to change their views.