Myths about myths? A commentary on Thomas (2020) and the question of jury rape myth acceptance

Abstract

This commentary responds to claims that research by Cheryl Thomas ‘shows’ no problem with rape myths in English and Welsh juries. We critique the claim on the basis of ambiguous survey design, a false distinction between ‘real’ jurors and other research participants, the conflation of attitudes in relation to abstract versus applied rape myths, and misleading interpretation of the data. Ultimately, we call for a balanced appraisal of individual studies by contextualising them against the wider literature.<br /><br />Key messages<br /><ul><li>Thomas (2020) argued that her research showed rape myths do not influence juries.</li><br /><li>We critique Thomas’ claim because the research was not designed to ask about influence on juries, there are several methodological limitations, and the data actually reveal ambivalence about rape myths on the part of many jurors.</li></ul>

Intimate Partner Rape: A Review of Six Core Myths Surrounding Women’s Conduct and the Consequences of Intimate Partner Rape

“…Such research findings have thereby drawn into question the ability of jurors to fairly and impartiality evaluate the evidence presented within rape trials, particularly in respect of IPR cases where attitudes surrounding a man's right to have sex with his partner or wife have historically been widely endorsed. Recent research did find that rape mythology was not widely endorsed among genuine trial jurors (Thomas 2020); however, this study has been widely criticized based on the methodology employed (see Daly et al 2022). Indeed, most rape trial judges now warn against the endorsement of rape myths within English courtrooms when delivering a direction to jurors (Ellison 2019).…”

Juror decision-making within domestic sex trafficking cases: do pre-trial attitudes, gender, culture and right-wing authoritarianism predict believability assessments?

“…However, there is ongoing debate surrounding the role of misconceptions about rape and broader sexual offences in juror decision-making. Thomas (2020) reported that “real” jurors show no such biases, although a group of researchers came together to challenge this conclusion based on the validity of the research (Daly et al , 2023). Given the ongoing debate as well as the fact that current research does not include the crime of sex trafficking, there is still a need for additional research on the role of gender and juror attitudes in decision-making within sex trafficking cases.…”

What do we know about ‘rape myth’ research and the claim that there is ‘overwhelming evidence’ that juries are prejudiced in rape trials?

“…Some valid questions are raised by Leverick and others regarding the research methodology used by Thomas, and as Thomas uses a very different form of questions it can be argued that this work cannot simplistically be used to invalidate the 'rape myth' research discussed by Leverick (Chalmers et al, 2021;Daly et al, 2022). Nevertheless, her work is useful, at the very least, because it raises some doubts about the certainty of the idea that jurors are seriously prejudiced and that rape trial juries should be abolished.…”