How male rape myths stop some victims of sexual assault from getting justice – new study
Are juries really impartial? Or is it the beliefs and attitudes they bring to trial that leads them to vote guilty or not? These questions are particularly important when it comes to the influence that rape myths may have on juror and judicial decision-making in sexual offence trials.
Rape myths are widely held but misleading ideas about sexual violence: who commits it, who experiences it and what it’s supposed to look like. Common rape myths include beliefs about what “real rape” looks like (that people are only raped by strangers), or blaming the victim for their rape based on their behaviour or what they were wearing. In England and Wales, the government recently announced reforms to counter these myths in court.
Most research on rape myths has focused on cases where the complainant is female. Rightly so, as women and girls are disproportionately affected in rape and sexual assault crimes.
However, men and boys are also victims of sexual offences. The Crime Survey for England and Wales reported in 2022 that 275,000 men experienced sexual assault in that one-year period alone. This is likely to be an underestimate, because men often don’t report these crimes for a variety of reasons.
This is why our new study explores how rape myths influence verdicts in male-on-male rape trials.
Previous research has suggested that rape myths relating to male survivors often blame victims, minimise the harm or exonerate the accused. One example is the belief that “real men” are able to stop unwanted sexual assaults from happening. Or jurors might believe that there would be some sign of physical resistance in “real” rape trials.
A key difference between rape myths about men and women relates to masculine archetypes and men’s perceived ability to “fight off” sexual advances. These attitudes can mean that jurors might not believe survivors who have alleged they have been raped, for example, if they had previously consented to sex with the same man.
We presented 463 mock jurors with a mock trial, in which one man accused another of rape. There were six versions of this experiment, involving men of different ethnicities, and both straight and gay men. The same evidence was presented in each of these versions, however, and the ethnicity or sexual orientation of the men involved did not appear to influence the jurors’ decision.
Jurors first completed the male rape myth acceptance scale, a tool developed by researchers to measure how strongly someone believes in male rape myths. They then evaluated the evidence presented in our mock trial and reached a verdict of guilty or not guilty.
Our findings suggested that those more likely to believe male rape myths were more likely to believe the accused, less likely to believe the complainant, and thus more likely to reach a not guilty verdict.
The opposite pattern was true for those with low belief in rape myths, with guilty verdicts being more likely. Essentially, male rape myths influenced how jurors constructed stories surrounding the evidence and ultimately influenced verdict preferences. These findings align with what other research has found in male-on-female rape trials.
Juror decisions and implications
We also asked jurors to tell us how they made their decisions. This qualitative data helped to explore the findings in more detail.
People who strongly believed common myths about male rape were much more likely to doubt the evidence. Jurors in this group had doubts about the reliability, clarity or sufficiency of the evidence presented in the mock trial.
They also frequently drew upon rape myths to explain their not guilty verdict decisions. One juror said: “He didn’t at any point say no or stop him touching his penis. Removed his own clothes, rolled over. There’s not enough evidence to prove guilt.”
In comparison, those who had low acceptance of male rape myths were more likely to perceive that the intoxication mentioned in the same trial was a clear barrier to consent. They rejected victim-blaming narratives. For instance, one mock juror said: “The complainant was too drunk to consent, drunk enough to cause sickness and need support in moving to his bedroom, if he can’t move around by himself he cannot consent to sex.”
Other recent research has found that male rape myths were frequently discussed by jurors in their deliberations. The justice system therefore clearly needs to use different tools to counter male rape myths – similar to what has been suggested to combat female rape myths.
These could be in the form of judicial instructions, educational videos or expert witnesses who can direct jurors away from the myths and nudge them towards the facts. Similar recommendations have been made by the UK government to counter rape myths in trials where the complainant is female.
Another solution could be more scientific juror selection. In the US, attorneys and judges use a process called voir dire to deselect biased jurors.
This process varies widely by length, whether questionnaires (such as scales that measure biases, like the rape myths scale) are allowed and who conducts it (judge only or attorneys and judge). Nevertheless, measures such as the male rape myths scale could be used to move those with high belief in rape myths from male-on-male rape trials, to other trial types where this bias is unlikely to influence decision-making (such as white collar crime).
Whatever the method, tackling rape myths is necessary to ensure justice for those who suffer sexual violence, regardless of their gender.
Lee John Curley receives funding from Leverhulme/British Academy.
Dominic Willmott received funding from The British Academy (SRG2223\231748) to carry out the research project to which this article relates.
Kennath Widanaralalage does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.