What Counts as Rape? The Effect of Offense Prototypes, Victim Stereotypes, and Participant Gender on How the Complainant and Defendant are Perceived

Abstract

Jurors rely on a range of schemas when evaluating allegations of rape and sexual assault. For example, they may be influenced by the prototypicality of the alleged offense, the stereotypicality of the victim, or gender-related stereotypes. These schemas have often been conflated however, making it difficult to determine the unique impact of each on jurors' perceptions. To be able to effectively counter any schema-related misconceptions, we must first identify which beliefs are important and when. An experiment (N = 420) examined the independent effects of offense prototypicality and victim stereotypicality on mock jurors' perceptions. As expected, victim stereotypicality had a greater effect on judgments in the counter-prototypical (acquaintance) assault scenario than in the prototypical (stranger) assault scenario. When the complainant was described as being a counter-stereotypical victim in the acquaintance rape scenario, the defendant was seen as less likely to be guilty and evaluated more positively and the complainant less positively compared with when the complainant was described as being a stereotypical victim. Analysis of the qualitative data suggested a focus on different factors in reaching verdicts in the stranger and acquaintance rape scenarios. Results were interpreted as evidence that jurors "step down" through a hierarchy of schemas in their attempts to determine what happened in cases of rape and sexual assault.

“Kui ongi tõsi, siis ise süüdi!” Seksuaalvägivallaga seonduvad stereotüübid ühe Eesti laste ja noorte veebifoorumi teemaalgatustes ja vastustes

“…Seda eriti angloameerika kohtusüsteemis, kus kasutatakse õigusemõistmisel vandekohtute süsteemi. Näiteks vägistamiste puhul, kus ohver ja teo toimepanija teineteist tunnevad, käsitleti toimepanijat sagedamini teos süüdi olevana, kui ohver vastas stereotüüpilise ohvri "kriteeriumitele", ning toimepanijat nähti sagedamini süütuna, kui ohver ei vastanud stereotüüpilisele kuvandile (McKimmie et al 2014). Samuti usuvad vandekohtunikud ohvrit sagedamini kui ohver on emotsionaalne (pisarates, endast väljas) võrreldes ohvritega, kes on rahulikud ja näitavad välja vähem emotsioone (Schuller et al 2010).…”

Attitudes of Dutch citizens towards male victims of sexual coercion by a female perpetrator

“…If the attack or the victim deviates from this portrayal, more blame is laid on the victim (e.g. McKimmie, Masser, & Bongiorno, 2014). However, this stereotypical image differs greatly from the reality of most cases of sexual violence; in over 80% of sexual assaults, the perpetrator is an acquaintance of the victim (De Haas, 2012).…”

“…Using vignettes is an established way of conducting research on attitudes towards sexual coercion (e.g. McKimmie et al, 2014;Russell et al, 2011). These categories were chosen to be in line with the findings of previous studies, as it was found that these categories present a hierarchy (Struckman-Johnson et al, 2003).…”

Stopping rape

“…The trial can be a harrowing experience for victims if their testimony and character are subjected to hostile questioning, and a person who is legally entitled to speak for the victim in this specific legal setting has been found to be of assistance in promoting justice (Londono, 2007;Horvath and Brown, 2009). In the courtroom, narrow stereotypes of 'real rape' or the practices as to what constitutes a 'good case' can get in the way of the delivery of justice (Temkin and Krahé, 2008;Smith and Skinner, 2012;McKimmie et al, 2014). Raitt (2010) argues convincingly that the provision of independent legal representatives for rape victims is the most effective way of supporting rape victims during trials, while Smith and Skinner (2012) note that this is a widespread but not universal practice in the EU.…”