In many common law jurisdictions, the jury have a key role to play in adjudicating cases involving serious sexual offences. Key aspects of these offences can often only be evaluated through scrutiny of complainant and defendant testimony, without strong corroborative evidence. Concerns have been raised about the appropriateness of the ...
In many common law jurisdictions, the jury have a key role to play in adjudicating cases involving serious sexual offences. Key aspects of these offences can often only be evaluated through scrutiny of complainant and defendant testimony, without strong corroborative evidence. Concerns have been raised about the appropriateness of the jury to perform this scrutiny, primarily due to the potential influence of “rape myths” (also known as “false assumptions”) on jury decisions. This article cohesively examines how jurors are likely to function in assessing complainant and defendant credibility absent strong corroborating evidence in an attempt to move the discussion in this area beyond rape myth endorsement only. It draws on findings identified from a review of research on determinations of truth in basic and applied cognitive science and accompanying theory to suggest that assessment of credibility is likely to be a constructive process undertaken by amalgamating a range of context with statements themselves., and to highlight how systematic biases and misconceptions may feed into decision-making through this process. It concludes by drawing on the analysis to suggest that the jury can be an appropriate decision-making body in cases involving serious sexual offences but that evidence-based policy is needed to guide the function of the jury to ensure consistency with normative legal goals.
