A STRANGER IN THE BUSHES, OR AN ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM? CRITICAL REFLECTIONS UPON RECEIVED RAPE MYTH WISDOM IN THE CONTEXT OF A MOCK JURY STUDY
A STRANGER IN THE BUSHES, OR AN ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM? CRITICAL REFLECTIONS UPON RECEIVED RAPE MYTH WISDOM IN THE CONTEXT OF A MOCK JURY STUDY
复制标题
DOI：
10.1525/nclr.2010.13.4.781
复制
发表时间：
2010-09-01
影响因子：
0.4
通讯作者：
Munro, Vanessa E.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Ellison, Louise;Munro, Vanessa E.
即使在当代，评论家也经常坚持认为，公众（以及陪审员）对性侵犯的狭隘观念对强奸案件的定罪构成了重大障碍。尽管在经验上存在缺陷，但有人断言，“真正的强奸”的流行形象假定了以下因素的存在：陌生人的施暴者、公共攻击地点、攻击者使用暴力以及受害者表现出身体抵抗。本文借鉴了一项模拟陪审团研究，其中 216 名公众观察了一次小型强奸案审判的重建，并被要求在陪审团小组内就裁决进行商议，本文批判性地审查了参与者对这一“真实强奸”原型的认可。它探讨了陪审员不愿定罪的程度可能是由于更复杂的因素相互作用，而不是简单化的指控所反映的，即他们对强奸的行为或可能的情况抱有过于狭隘的概念。此外，它批判性地反映了参与者对妇女虚假强奸指控的普遍性及其原因的看法。此外，将参与者对预审议问卷的回答与他们对陪审团审议的话语贡献并列，本文提出了更广泛的方法论批评。更具体地说，它强调了从抽象的强奸神话接受度调查中不加批判地推断来预测具体案件中的判决结果所带来的一些危险，其中陪审员（模拟或其他）更熟悉具体情况，并被指示在得出结论时遵守可行的法律标准。
Commentators, even in contemporary times, have often insisted that the narrowness of public (and thus juror) conceptions of what constitutes sexual assault poses a significant obstacle to securing a conviction in rape cases. Though empirically flawed, it is asserted that the popular image of "real rape" assumes the existence of-amongst other things-a stranger perpetrator, a public attack location, a use of violence by the assailant, and a show of physical resistance by the victim. Drawing on a mock jury study, in which 216 members of the public observed a mini-rape trial reconstruction and were asked to deliberate within jury groups toward a verdict, this article critically examines participants' subscription to this "real rape" prototype. It explores the extent to which jurors' reluctance to convict may be attributable to a more complex interplay of factors than is reflected in the simplistic charge that they assume an unduly narrow conception of what rape does, or could, look like. In addition, it critically reflects upon participants' perceptions of the prevalence of, and reasons for, women's false rape allegations. Juxtaposing participants' responses to predeliberation questionnaires with their discursive contributions to the jury deliberations, moreover, this article lodges a broader, methodological critique. More specifically, it highlights some of the dangers associated with uncritical extrapolation from abstract rape myth acceptance surveys to predict verdict outcomes in concrete cases, where jurors (mock or otherwise) are more familiar with the circumstantial context and directed to comply with operative legal standards in reaching their conclusions.