Abstract
AbstractThis article presents findings from the largest research study of the nature of mock jury deliberations in rape cases undertaken in the UK to date – and the first such study to be undertaken in the Scottish context. The study found considerable evidence of the expression of problematic attitudes towards rape complainers. These included the belief that a ‘real’ rape victim would have extensive external and internal injuries and would resist attack by inflicting injuries on her attacker and shouting for help, that even a short delay in reporting a rape is suspicious, and that false allegations of rape are commonly made by women and difficult to refute. There was, however, also evidence that some jurors were willing to challenge these attitudes and that they often relied – explicitly or implicitly – on third‐sector campaigns to do so. The article concludes by drawing out the implications of this research for policy and practice.
Highlights
In this article, we present findings from a major research study, which involved 64 mock juries, comprising 863 individual participants, viewing a film of a simulated trial and deliberating
This article presents findings from the largest research study of the nature of mock jury deliberations in rape cases undertaken in the UK to date – and the first such study to be undertaken in the Scottish context
It was the first to explore in a systematic way the approach taken by Scottish jurors to key aspects of Scottish law and procedure, including decisions reached by juries of 15 people via simple majority, a second acquittal verdict, and a corroboration requirement.[3]
Summary
We present findings from a major research study, which involved 64 mock juries, comprising 863 individual participants, viewing a film of a simulated trial (for either rape or assault) and deliberating. We explore – in the context of a corroboration requirement – the lack of clarity among jurors as to whether evidence provided by a medical expert (which confirmed that the complainer’s injuries were consistent with her account, but could have been inflicted through other means, including consensual sex) could adequately support the complainer’s testimony This discussion provides a substantial evidence base that builds on and affirms findings of previous studies that have used mock juries to evaluate the content of deliberations in rape cases.[5] It goes beyond those findings by enabling reflection for the first time on distinctively Scottish aspects, including the corroboration requirement and the not proven verdict, against a background of a number of high-profile public campaigns spearheaded by Rape Crisis Scotland and designed to challenge misconceptions around sexual assault.[6].
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
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 call
