Evidence shows that feminist academics’ work on ‘rape myths’ is unscientific, biased and a threat to justice.
In October 2024 the Scottish government axed their proposed pilot scheme that would have seen juryless trials used in rape cases.
The proposal that would have resulted in a single judge deciding on guilt was seen by many as an attempt to increase conviction rates at the expense of the accused. As a result, it was opposed by defence lawyers who said they would refuse to cooperate in these trials and so the government was forced into a humiliating U-turn. Juryless trials are off the agenda in Scotland, for now at least.
Juryless trials were proposed in the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill. The evidence of the need for this change came largely from academics who promote the idea that the public are prejudiced and believe in rape myths and as a result cannot be trusted to sit on juries in rape cases. In particular, the work of Fiona Leverick was highlighted and the term she used of ‘overwhelming evidence’ of rape myths was used regularly by those promoting juryless trials. For example, the document that prefigured the Reform Bill, entitled Improving the Management of Sexual Offence Cases, written by Lady Dorrian, the second most senior judge in Scotland, cited research by Fiona Leverick 19 times, to justify this idea of juryless trials.
Leverick’s key paper, What do we know about rape myths and juror decision making was published in 2020 and it is here that we find the definitive statement about ‘overwhelming evidence’ of rape myths. But, as I show in a journal article, Leverick’s claims are unscientific and biased.
“these experiments use volunteers, usually students, who often have little more than a few pages about the case and in the majority of the experiments individuals make decisions with no deliberation. As a result, the experiments rarely reflect anything approaching a real trial”
In her paper, Leverick collates a mass of evidence, largely from mock jury trials. Here we find experiments carried out with participants who are given trial evidence and asked to judge whether the imagined accused is guilty or not guilty of rape. However, almost all of this research is methodologically flawed and lacks statistical veracity, something that Leverick, ironically, recognises herself.
Unlike real trials, these experiments use volunteers, usually students, who often have little more than a few pages about the case and in the majority of the experiments individuals make decisions with no deliberation. As a result, the experiments rarely reflect anything approaching a real trial, or a real jury, and of course they are not real, they are ‘mock’ trials. Consequently, the evidence from these experiments cannot or should not be used as a reflection of the outlook of the public or of how real juries actually operate and make decisions.
When using non-representative population samples in social science research, not only should we be wary of drawing academic conclusions, but we should not use it as the basis for changing policy decisions. As professor of legal psychology Andreas Kapardis has observed, ‘Many psycho-legal researchers would agree…that authors of unrealistic jury simulations should qualify their findings and should refrain from putting them forward as the basis for policy changes’. Despite this, this is exactly what Fiona Leverick did.
However, the problems with this research run much deeper than these methodological flaws.
Part of the mock jury trial process is not only in carrying out mock trials with participants, but the participants are then asked to fill out a rape myth acceptance (RMA) survey. This survey, often consisting of around 30 questions and is intended to assess if a participant has problematic views or values regarding sexual aggression. What they also do is to test the level of victim empathy of participant as well as testing for more conservative or traditional values regarding relationships. Indeed, as one of the key creators of this survey admits, rather than being a scientific assessment, what participants are being asked to complete, is an ethics test.
In a rape myth acceptance (RMA) survey “participants are asked to rate statements like this: When it comes to sexual contacts, women expect men to take the lead. If you answer with a 1, it means you strongly disagree and are therefore an ethically good person. But if you answer with a high number this means you are ethically problematic.”
The approach in these experiments is to assess whether those with seemingly problematic, or unethical, attitudes are more likely to find the accused not guilty. In most cases this is what is discovered. However, the nature of many of the questions asked in the RMA test are problematic.
On a scale of 1-7 for example, participants are asked to rate statements like this: When it comes to sexual contacts, women expect men to take the lead. If you answer with a 1, it means you strongly disagree and are therefore an ethically good person. But if you answer with a high number this means you are ethically problematic.
Other questions in the most highly regarded RMA test include:
· After a rape, women nowadays receive ample support.
· If a woman invites a man to her home for a cup of coffee after a night out this means that she wants to have sex.
· Most women prefer to be praised for their looks rather than their intelligence.
These questions are themselves questionable in terms of what researchers think they are finding. The term ‘ample’ is unclear, what does ample mean, and what if the support being given to women is significant where you live. The coffee question is also questionable. The answer given could depend on personal experiences where in some cases this is true, and the truth is, we do not know the correct answer, there is no research proving the coffee question one way of the other. Similarly with the attractiveness question, the answer to which could depend on class, age and a variety of factors, and again is something we do not factually know one way or the other.
In many respects what is really being demanded here is a modern feminist perspective, rather than anything to do with objective truths.
“…individuals, with low scores [on a rape myth acceptance (RMA) survey] are more likely to find the accused guilty in the mock jury trials”.
To add to the confusion, one could make the argument that the questions about men taking the lead and women wanting to be praised for their looks could be answered with a high (i.e. ‘bad’) score based on a feminist perspective. If we live in a patriarchal society that limits women, encourages them to be passive, and encourages them to be preoccupied with their looks, then surely a feminist should agree with the idea that women expect men to take the lead and want to be praised for their looks.
Whatever we make of this test, the idea that this can be used as a basis for understanding attitudes and then used to develop policies like abolishing juries, is quite extraordinary. Leverick claims that the RMA scale is ‘scientifically validated’, but there is little about this feminist ethics test that could realistically be described as scientific.
It is not that this research is not of some interest, but when you look at the conclusions of almost all of this academic work their concern is only with those with high scores. Those with especially low scores, i.e. individuals who are understood to be highly empathetic towards rape victims, are not considered to be a potential problem. Indeed, quite the opposite, these participants are understood to be good people.
Dig a little deeper however, and we find hidden within this research itself that these same ‘ethical’ individuals, with low scores, are more likely to find the accused guilty in the mock jury trials. But here’s the rub. The very nature of these mock experiments is that they are set up in a way where there is not enough external evidence – forensic evidence, eyewitnesses, or CCTV footage – to convict the accused. In other words, as one academic explains, there is a ‘lack of compelling evidence’ to find guilt.
The lack of compelling evidence is needed in these mock jury experiments because if there was clear evidence all jurors would be likely to find the accused guilty. Whereas what the researchers are really interested in is not the assessment of actual physical evidence or the objective assessment of it, but the values and beliefs of individuals based on the testimony of the alleged victim and the accused.
“The academics have created scenarios where there is a lack of clear evidence, but many of the participants nevertheless, despite this lack of evidence, find the accused guilty of rape. And yet, almost nothing is made of these findings”.
As a result, based on the lack of ‘compelling evidence’, one would expect the participants to consistently find the accused not guilty, but this is not what happens. Time and again, around a quarter of participants come to a guilty verdict. But based on the presumption of innocence expected in law, and upon the need to only find guilt where you are beyond reasonable doubt, if these results were replicate in real jury situations, what we would be witnessing is a significant number of miscarriages of justice.
To reiterate, these are the existing findings within this body of research. The academics have created scenarios where there is a lack of clear evidence, but many of the participants nevertheless, despite this lack of evidence, find the accused guilty of rape.
And yet, almost nothing is made of these findings by the very researchers who carry out this work.
One cannot look inside the minds of these academics to assess why this is happening and why they see no problem in the finding of guilt, but it would appear that because they believe that one should be empathetic to the alleged victim, rather than question those who decide upon guilt, these academics actually celebrate this cohort of participants.
In other words, because the feminist nature of the research and the pre-existing ethical framework is based upon the belief that empathising with the alleged victim is a good, the academics lack the critical capacity to see what is staring them in the face – the potential for criminalising innocent men.
Analysed properly, these researchers should be able to see that guilt was being found by a significant number of participants when the evidence for guilt was simply not there.
One of the researchers, Dominic Wilmott analysed the educational background of participants in mock jury trials and explained that those with a university degree are more inclined to have low RMA scores i.e. they are more empathetic and are likely to find guilt. But rather than question why the more educated participants get it wrong and find men guilty when there is not sufficient evidence, Willmott states, ‘It is possible that the role of intelligence may be accounted for in terms of critical thinking capabilities in that, those with greater educational attainment are both more able and willing to critically appraise, rather than passively accept, preconceived attitudes that are common place in society’.
“…university educated students are inclined to make the wrong judgement, possibly because they, like Willmott have adopted a new victim empathy-based prejudice and ethical starting point, one that is arguably prevalent amongst the ‘educated’ middle classes.”
Because Willmott already believes that those who empathise with the victim are ethically good people, he presumes that they are more critical, less passive and less prone to adopt preconceived attitudes. But it would appear that the exact opposite is the truth i.e. the university educated students are inclined to make the wrong judgement, possibly because they, like Willmott have adopted a new victim empathy-based prejudice and ethical starting point, one that is arguably prevalent amongst the ‘educated’ middle classes.
Again, to reiterate, this does not mean that there are not prejudices or myths about rape, but this body of research does not prove this. What it does suggest, is that both the educated participants and the academics studying them have a new (arguably elitist) prejudice, or sensibility, that has moved towards an ethical starting point that you should, indeed that it is good, and ethical, to believe the victim.
This has potentially devastating consequences for justice.
Juryless trials are off the agenda in Scotland for now but the belief in rape myths continues and the research by these feminist academics continues to be used as a basis for questioning and attempting to change and deform the balance of justice in rape cases.
Scroll down to join the discussion
Disclaimer: This article is for information purposes only and is not a substitute for therapy, legal advice, or other professional opinion. Never disregard such advice because of this article or anything else you have read from the Centre for Male Psychology. The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of, or are endorsed by, The Centre for Male Psychology, and we cannot be held responsible for these views. Read our full disclaimer here.
Like our articles?
Click here to subscribe to our FREE newsletter and be first
to hear about news, events, and publications.
Have you got something to say?
Check out our submissions page to find out how to write for us.
.
