Centre for Public Policy

Fiona Leverick, James Chalmers, Eamon Keane and Jacqueline Kinghan from the University of Glasgow's School of Law write about the evidence on rape myths and jury decision making and how these can be addressed in the courtroom. 

Blog by Fiona Leverick, James Chalmers, Eamon Keane and Jacqueline Kinghan

The way in which the criminal justice system deals with reported sexual offences is a key concern in many countries, and jurisdictions worldwide are currently, or have recently, engaged in law reform exercises in this area. A common issue in these efforts is concern that jurors may be influenced by so-called rape myths – false and prejudicial beliefs about rape and rape victims – that affect their decision making.

A new report from the University of Glasgow School of Law summarises the evidence and practice in this area and what might be done to address it. The report follows on from a workshop held in Glasgow in 2024, funded by the Royal Society of Edinburgh.

What are rape myths?

Rape myths can be defined as false and prejudicial beliefs about rape and rape victims. In Scotland, a review of the management of sexual offence cases, the Dorrian Review, concluded that juries may not be deciding cases based on an objective view of the evidence and that their judgments may be distorted by false beliefs about what they think a genuine rape looks like. These include the beliefs that rape is always accompanied by significant violence, someone being raped would always forcefully resist and a genuine rape victim would always report the incident immediately. It made two principal recommendations to address the issue: a pilot programme of communicating information to juries regarding common rape myths and stereotypes, possibly by a video, and a time-limited pilot of single judge rape trials.

The Scottish Government took forward the second of these recommendations in legislation introduced into Parliament in 2023, but after considerable opposition removed the relevant provision from the legislation.

Framing the issue

The Dorrian Review’s recommendations were made against the background of a particularly low conviction rate in cases involving a single charge of rape in respect of a single complainer, where recently published data demonstrates that the conviction rate in such cases was 22.5%, compared to a conviction rate for all crimes and offences of 94%. But concern about rape myths is not solely a matter of conviction rates: even if conviction rates were high it would be a concern if jurors were deciding cases under the influence of false and prejudicial beliefs.

The evidence base on rape myths and jury decision making

The new report reviews in detail the evidence on the extent to which jurors subscribe to rape myths. Such work involves various research methods: attitude surveys, mock jury studies and interviews with jurors, all with their own strengths and weaknesses. Despite the limitations of different research methods, studies of all types support the conclusion that jurors subscribe to rape myths. There is also evidence of a significant relationship between scores on rape myth measurement scales and verdict choices. It cannot be assumed that the influence of rape myths will be effectively challenged during jury deliberations. This would require that within the jury there will (a) be jurors who do not hold false beliefs, (b) these jurors are prepared to challenge false beliefs when they arise and (c) these challenges will be effective in changing attitudes.

Approaches to addressing rape myths

The report primarily considers direct approaches to addressing the influence of rape myths: that is, by implementing strategies to prevent or limit juries from relying on false beliefs in their decision making. Four possibilities are identified: removing the jury as a decision-maker in favour of a professional judge; juror selection; judicial directions and expert evidence. The first of these has already been proposed and abandoned in Scotland, and the Scottish legal framework leaves little scope for the second.

Judicial directions in this context have formally been part of Scots law since 2017 and have been developed further in 2023. There is presently limited scope for the use of expert evidence. An alternative approach here is general juror education, perhaps in the form of a video, as recommended by the Dorrian Review.

The evidence base on the effectiveness of juror education 

The evidence on the effectiveness of methods of targeting rape myths in jury deliberation is limited, but there is some evidence of positive effects. The evidence base is inconclusive as to the most effective mode of delivery of an educational intervention and almost non-existent on whether the timing of the intervention can improve its effectiveness. This is a significant research gap, as research in other areas has suggested that jury directions are most effective when given at the start of a trial, before jurors form a view of the case that becomes ingrained and difficult to shift. 

There is a need for further mixed method research in this area, especially in relation to the relative effectiveness of different modes of delivery and the timing of the intervention. 

Read the report: Rape Myths and Jury Decision Making: An Evidence Review

Authors 

Fiona Leverick is Professor of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice

James Chalmers is Regius Professor of Law 

Eamon Keane is Lecturer in Evidence and Criminal Procedure and Principal Solicitor of the Emma Ritch Law Clinic 

Jacqueline Kinghan is Professor of Law and Social Change 

 

^{Preview image: 'Juries seating in court' by DAPA Images on Canva Pro}

---

First published: 6 May 2025