Sexual Assault and the Justice Gap: A Question of Attitude by Jennifer Temkin and Barbara Krahé 15 April 2008; £30; ISBN 9781841136707 Paperback 258 pages
This book is set against the background of the 'justice gap' in sexual assault cases - the dramatic gap between the number of offences recorded by the police and the number of convictions. It seeks to examine the attitudinal problems which bedevil this area of law and possible strategies for addressing them. Written by a professor of law and a professor of psychology, it reviews evidence from socio-legal and social cognition research and presents new data drawn both from interviews with judges and barristers and from studies with prospective lawyers and members of the public. In the final part, it considers different ways in which rape trials could be improved and suggests steps that could be taken to change public attitudes about sexual assault. Scroll down academic and media comments
___________________________________
Jennifer Temkin is Professor of Law at the University of Sussex, UK. Barbara Krahé is Professor of Psychology at the University of Potsdam, Germany
Attitude problem at heart of low conviction rates for rape
Ill-informed attitudes and myths surrounding sexual offences still permeate society and are a major stumbling block to improving on low rape conviction rates, says a new book.
The call comes in Sexual Assault and the Justice Gap: A Question of Attitude, which looks at why most rapes reported to the police do not result in conviction.
Despite increases in the number of rapes reported to the police, conviction rates have declined or remained stagnant in many Western countries. In England and Wales, the proportion of reported rapes that ended in a conviction declined from 32 per cent in 1979 to 5.3 per cent in 2004/5.
The book's authors - law professor Jennifer Temkin (University of Sussex, UK) and psychology professor Barbara Krahé (University of Potsdam, Germany) - identify society's continuing acceptance of myths and false beliefs about rape as an important problem in securing convictions - especially as such biased views can be held by the key players in the criminal justice system, such as police officers, prosecutors, judges and juries.
Typical rape "myths" include:
True rapes are only ever carried out by strangers; Rape accusations against men known to the victim are usually the result of "misunderstandings", embarrassment or revenge and therefore aren't really rape at all; A complainant's sexual history, drunkenness or revealing clothes invalidate a complaint.
The book presents a series of new studies with more than 2,000 members of the public eligible for jury service, law students and prospective lawyers in vocational training, who were asked to assess a range of written rape scenarios.
Professor Temkin says: "We found that the more people believe in rape myths, the more they are inclined to blame the victim and exonerate the perpetrator, even though in all the scenarios the woman made it clear that she did not consent to sex. We also found that, where there was a previous relationship, there is a clear tendency amongst people in general to blame women who allege rape and downplay the responsibility of the perpetrator."
The authors studied a Home Office anti-rape poster campaign aimed at young men. They found little evidence that the posters were effective in promoting awareness about the importance of consent and in dispelling myths about rape. The authors conclude that their findings demonstrate the importance of careful design and pre-testing of material used in media campaigns.
In addition, the book includes the results of an in-depth interview study with highly experienced judges and barristers, which suggest that old attitudes persist, so that the law now surrounding rape does not work in the way that it is supposed to do.
The authors present strategies that could help reduce the adverse impact of rape myths. These include:
Enforcing laws that provide legal protection for those alleging rape and changing the law to permit evidence of the good character of a person alleging rape; Screening jurors with a view to deciding whether those who are likely to be implacably biased against the complainant or the defendant should serve; Introducing expert evidence in the courtroom to educate jurors and the public about rape; Improving training of judges and barristers; Education of the public to dispel misconceptions about rape and emphasise the importance of consent in sexual encounters, starting in schools and through carefully constructed media campaigns. Notes for editors
Sexual Assault and the Justice Gap: A Question of Attitude, by Professor Jennifer Temkin and Professor Barbara Krahé, is published in paperback by Hart Publishing on 15 April 2008; £30; ISBN 9781841136707.
To order a copy, please contact Hart Publishing Ltd, 16C Worcester Place, Oxford, OX1 2JW. Tel: 01865 517530 or email:
Or order through the website: http://www.hartpub.co.uk/books/details.asp?isbn=9781841136707
Jennifer Temkin is a Professor of Law at the University of Sussex. Called to the Bar in 1971, she lectured at the London School of Economics before joining the University of Sussex. Professor Temkin was a member of the External Reference Group, Home Office Sex Offences Review, 1999-2000.
Barbara Krahé is a Professor of Social Psychology at the University of Potsdam in Germany. She has been researching sexual violence over the past 25 years. Professor Krahé also has a long connection with the Department of Psychology at Sussex.
University of Sussex Press office contacts: Maggie Clune and Jacqui Bealing. Email
or call 01273 678209.
Judges admit they get round law designed to protect women in rape trials
· Sexual history still being introduced at hearings
· New book reveals judicial attitudes to legislation
Clare Dyer, legal editor
Judges have undermined a law intended to stop defence lawyers cross-examining women in rape cases about their sexual history, by continuing to insist on their discretion to allow it, a new book discloses.
Interviews with 17 judges in London and Manchester found that some insisted they still had a wide discretion to allow questions on sexual history, although the law was changed in 2000 to impose severe limits on questioning.
One judge described the provision as "pretty pathetic because it's get-roundable".
Another said: "I'm not one for being unduly fettered. I've been appointed to do a job on the basis that I have a certain amount of judgment, and to be fettered or shackled by statutory constraints I don't think helps anybody."
The conviction rate in rape cases remains stubbornly low - only 5.7% of cases reported to police, despite a series of legal reforms aimed at boosting it.
The limits on introducing sexual history were intended to prevent defence lawyers from feeding into jury prejudices about rape by making the complainant seem less deserving.
Sexual Assault and the Justice Gap: A Question of Attitude, to be published by Hart Publishing on April 15, puts much of the blame for the low conviction rate on myths and stereotypes about the crime.
The authors say the entire justice process is affected, from the initial decision to report the rape to police, through to conviction or acquittal by a jury.
The authors - Jennifer Temkin, professor of law at Sussex University, and Barbara Krahe, professor of social psychology at the University of Potsdam in Germany - found stereotypical views about rape were widespread among potential jurors.
Their survey of more than 2,000 members of the public aged 18-69 showed people tended to blame the woman for bringing the attack on herself, see a case where the man had sex with a woman without her consent when she was drunk as not a "real rape", and downplay the seriousness of having forced sex when the perpetrator was the woman's former partner.
The views were also found to be common when the authors outlined a range of rape scenarios to British undergraduate law students in their final year and a group of British graduates doing professional law training, the lawyers and judges of the future.
The interviews with the judges took place in 2003 as part of a 2006 Home Office research study but their comments, reproduced in the book, have never before been published.
A high court judge told the Guardian that the extent to which lawyers should be allowed to ask questions about a woman's past sexual behaviour was still "a big issue" for judges.
The limits on questions about sexual history came into force in December 2000. But in 2001 a case called R v A went to the House of Lords, in which the defendant claimed that he had previously had sex with the complainant and that this was relevant information for the jury in deciding whether she had consented on this occasion.
The law lords' judgment gave judges only slightly more leeway to allow questioning in such cases, but the authors say some took it as having completely restored their discretion. Six of the 17 judges interviewed were "plainly undeterred and, regardless of the new legislation, were not prepared to forgo their discretion in these matters", they say.
They add: "Progressive law reform in the area of rape has been undermined by judicial interpretation and ... some judges are not entirely free from the same stereotypical beliefs and assumptions held by members of the public."
One judge said: "Judges tend to take a reasonably generous view when the question of past sexual history is considered. Maybe I'm talking personally, I don't know. But I get the impression, talking amongst colleagues, certainly here, and occasionally at sex courses [training for judges on dealing with sex crimes] and so on, that's the general approach."
Temkin said: "The way I see the sexual history legislation is as a very laudable attempt to deal with these stereotypes which get in the way of looking at cases on the facts.
"The design was a good one that was driven by the best of motives, which was to tackle these stereotypes. If the legislation isn't implemented in the way that is intended, that goal is being undermined."
UK
Press release: 31 March 2008
London ~~ Tuesday April 1 2008, Page 10