Gender inequality regarding sex crimes was blatantly evident under the Sexual Offences Act 1956. This was especially the case in rape as consent was left to the jury’s discretion. They were advised to apply “their combined good sense, experience and knowledge of human nature and modern behaviour to the relevance facts.” Unfortunately, this often meant that the jury responded to the facts of the case against the backdrop of their personal beliefs, inevitably permitting a reliance on rape myths within the courtroom. Due to this, the Sexual Offences Act 2003 was introduced to modernise the law and to adapt to changing socio-sexual norms. Unfortunately, the reforms failed to make a significant impact in rape convictions. This made it clear that the problem of low conviction rates in rape was not due to the black-letter law but the public’s perception of female victims of rape. The aim of my dissertation was to research and analyse the jury’s interaction with rape myths in the courtroom as well as different ways the courts could minimise the use of rape myths. In relation to rape myths, the most damaging rape myth is the ‘real rape’ myth which describes how a general member of the public would perceive a typical rape situation. This includes “an attack by a stranger on an unsuspecting victim in an outdoor location, involving the use or threat of force by the assailant and active physical resistance by the victim.” In reality, victimisation surveys reveal that rape is most commonly carried out by a previous acquaintance and that victims are often “too frightened or overpowered to fight back.” The danger of the real rape myth, therefore, lies with how it paints an unrealistic picture of rape and consequently it lays a foundation of how a victim will need to present themselves to the jury for the assault to be recognised as rape. This theory is supported by empirical evidence indicating that the more the assault differs from a “real rape” scenario, the less likely the jury will be to constitute the assault as rape. In order to dispel such myths, I primarily considered the use of expert evidence, judicial education and public education. I found that expert evidence would have limited effectiveness in the courtroom as it would result in a “battle of experts.” Instead of the jury coming to their own conclusions, they would adopt that of the expert due to their scientific credentials. Thus, the jury would merely fit the victim's profile to the expert's findings rather than applying the law to the facts at hand.

Further, judicial education in sexual offences entails that judges not only have a better understanding of the law itself but also contemporary socio-sexual issues. A caveat to this is that some judges may nevertheless leave judicial training seminars with the same preconceived ideas as before. Nevertheless, the adversarial tradition in the UK means that the judges simply sum up the facts and direct the jury on the application of the law. Consequently, the judges do not have the power to directly impact the way in which the jury applies the facts to the law. My consideration of the research suggested that the only method in which the views and norms used by the jury would be changed is through public education. Academics in the field such as Beres share a similar opinion as she believes that “one of the main assumptions behind sexual violence prevention education is that people do not know how to consent to sex and thus need to be taught.” The programmes were especially effective at a younger age as individuals at that age are yet to form an opinion on sexual matters, so setting a foundation in what is considered socially acceptable sexual behaviour is key. The notion behind this is that young individuals will base their beliefs on what was taught to them by the programme. Of course, this is a long-term strategy, however, it is undoubtedly the most efficient way to dispel rape myths. This dissertation not only examined methods in which to dispel rape myths but it also highlighted the issue of gender stereotypes. Unfortunately, women see their credibility in trials significantly diminished due to gender stereotypes. For example, instead of the male’s inappropriate sexual behaviour being criticised, it is very common for women to be blamed for being sexually assaulted because they “ask for it.” It is concerning that such norms are present in our current society, although the danger lies with the fact that gender stereotypes operate very subtly. A relevant example is that it is commonly believed that if a woman is drunk, they become more sexually promiscuous. Therefore, public education is not only key to dispelling rape myths in the courtroom, but also in our society.

Related Blogs

• 

  Reforming Corporate Insolvency Law for the 21st Century: Shaping the Future of Insolvency

• 

  Adverse Influence, Mental Ill Health, Risk, and Criminalisation: Does mental ill health increase the incidence of criminalisation of care-experienced children in England?

• 

  Rewriting the Rules, The Green Exchange; Evolving Environmental Policy and Legal Practice in English Law through Ecosystem Services Schemes

Disclaimer

The opinions expressed by our bloggers and those providing comments are personal, and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of Lancaster University. Responsibility for the accuracy of any of the information contained within blog posts belongs to the blogger.