Abstract
Despite years of policy reform in England and Wales, court responses to rape and sexual assault victims remain inadequate. Existing literature often relies on interviews, is outdated by policy, or ignores underlying assumptions. This study therefore observed rape and sexual assault trials, identifying underlying assumptions using critical discourse analysis (CDA). The main themes that arose were routine delays, notions of “rational” behavior, extreme interpretations of “beyond reasonable doubt” (BRD) and “burden of proof,” and winning as priority. These highlight the need to move beyond prioritizing shorter term change and begin addressing the fundamental inadequacies of court responses to rape and sexual assault victims.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
