Rape myths, jury deliberations, and conversation analysis: Examining conversational practices used to undermine rape complaints within (mock) jury deliberations

Abstract

Despite decades of research and policy campaigns, low rates of reports, prosecutions and convictions in rape cases persist. Culturally shared prejudicial beliefs, known as ‘rape myths’, are widely reported to undermine the perceived credibility of complainants in jury deliberations. Most evidence of rape myths is abstracted from the interactional practices in which they are built. Adopting a Discursive Psychological approach, we examine how such ‘myths’ are embedded into jurors' accounts during deliberations. Employing conversation analysis we interrogate how ‘rape myths’ are used within 435 minutes of deliberations from a realistic live trial re-enactment. We describe jurors' use of, ‘discrediting contrastive devices’; used to discredit the complainant's testimony by contrasting their behaviour with what a “typical” person would do prior to, during, and following a rape. We explore rape myths not as social-cognitive states, but as interactional devices deployed while describing, arguing, and persuading, and that are to be supported, resisted, and reformulated by jurors. We argue that it is crucial to understand the circulation of ‘rape myths’ as cultural knowledge and logic in use. We offer further insight into the existence and impact of prejudicial rape myths within jury deliberations, contributing to ongoing debate in rape trial jury functionality and reform.