Oath or Affirmation? Religious Implications of Legal Declarations in Rape Cases

• In Event: Lightning Talk: Key Issues in Power-Based Violence

Abstract

Rape victims perceived as moral are treated more favorably than those perceived as immoral (e.g., with a criminal record; Spears & Spohn, 1997). Many Americans equate morality with belief in God, suggesting a victim’s religiosity may influence legal judgments. In a mock juror study where the victim’s religious belief was stated, participants perceived atheist victims as significantly less moral than Christian victims, leading to fewer guilty verdicts (Brown-Iannuzzi et al., 2021). We extended these findings by examining a courtroom procedure that implies religious belief/disbelief: swearing an oath or affirming. In this mock juror experiment, online participants (N=122) read a rape trial summary in which the victim and defendant took an oath (religious connotation) or affirmation (secular connotation). Participants individually rendered a verdict and rated various perceptions of the victim and defendant. Participants perceived an oath-swearing victim as significantly more religious than an affirming victim, but declaration type did not affect verdicts or other victim ratings. However, men and those with a stronger belief in God/gods rated the victim more negatively (e.g., lower morality, higher blame) than women and those with weaker/no belief. These findings provide insight into the role of religiosity in perceived morality and legal judgments of rape cases.

Authors

• Alex Ray, Bridgewater State University

• Nesa Wasarhaley, Bridgewater State University