Search
Program Calendar
Browse By Day
Browse By Room
Search Tips
Virtual Exhibit Hall
Personal Schedule
Sign In
The “La Manada” (Wolf Pack) case ignited fierce debate in Spain about rape victim credibility. Initially, five men were convicted of sexual abuse rather than rape for assaulting an 18-year-old woman. This verdict sparked nationwide protests, exposing deep-rooted judicial biases and challenging prevalent rape myths. The Supreme Court later reclassified the crime as rape. Victim testimony often serves as the primary evidence in such cases. This paper delves into the factors influencing the credibility of rape victims in Spanish courts. To achieve this, a mixed-methods approach was employed, combining both quantitative and qualitative analyses. The quantitative analysis examined 448 rape case sentences in Spain from 2000 to 2019, while the qualitative analysis focused on 50 selected sentences. This dual approach allowed for a comprehensive understanding of the judicial criteria used to evaluate victim credibility, as well as the identification of stereotypes and biases that influence court decisions. The findings highlight four key criteria that significantly impact victim credibility: the degree of violence used against the victim, the prior relationship between the victim and the offender, the victim's perceived vulnerability, and the victim's behavior before, during, and after the assault, as well as during the trial. Courts tend to find victims more credible when the assault fits the stereotype of a real rape – typically involving violence by a stranger – and when there is clear evidence of physical resistance. Conversely, victim credibility is often questioned when the assault deviates from these stereotypes, such as when there is a prior intimate relationship between the victim and the offender, or when the victim's behavior does not align with expected post-trauma responses.