Rape myths vs. the not proven verdict: what is influencing conviction rates in rape trials in Scotland?

• In Event: Sentencing 6. National and Comparative Perspectives

Abstract

Background: The Scottish verdict system includes three verdicts: ‘guilty’, ‘not guilty’ and ‘not proven’. Politicians propose that the three-verdict system is partially to blame for the low conviction rate of rape, whereas research suggests that rape myths may be having a larger impact. Potential alternatives to the current verdict system would be a general system of guilty and not guilty verdicts or a verdict system which used special verdicts like proven and not proven.

Objectives: To test the effects of varying verdict systems (Guilty, Not Guilty and Not Proven; Guilty and Not Guilty; a series of Proven and Not Proven verdicts) and rape myths on juror verdicts.

Design and Methods: 180 participant answered questions regarding their acceptance of rape myths using the Acceptance of Modern Myth and Sexual Aggression (AMMSA) scale. They then watched a staged rape trial filmed in a real courtroom and reached a verdict(s)

Results: The main findings are (1) the special verdict system leads to a higher conviction rate than the other systems when rape myth acceptance is controlled for. (2) The higher the rape myth acceptance, the more favourably the accused was perceived and the less favourably the complainer was perceived.

Conclusions: Through a combined reform of juror selection and a special verdict system conviction rates may increase in rape trials.

Authors

• Lee John Curley, The Open University

• James Munro, The Open University