This paper presents overwhelming evidence that prejudicial and false beliefs held by jurors about rape affect their evaluation of the evidence and their decision making in rape cases. The paper draws together for the first time the available evidence from both quantitative and qualitative studies (most of which are not found in law journals, but rather in scientific outlets, most commonly those focusing on experimental psychology). The quantitative research demonstrates that mock jurors’ scores on so-called ‘rape myth scales’ are significant predictors of their judgments about responsibility, blame and (most importantly) verdict. The qualitative research indicates that jurors frequently express problematic views about how ‘real’ rape victims would behave and what ‘real’ rape looks like during mock jury deliberations and that even those who score relatively low on abstract rape myth scales can express prejudicial beliefs when deliberating in a particular case. The studies vary in terms of their realism, but it is important to note that some of the studies reported here were highly realistic trial reconstructions, involving representative samples of jurors drawn from the community, live trial reconstructions, evidence-in-chief and cross-examination, accurate legal directions and deliberation in groups. The review concludes by examining the evidence on whether juror education—whether in the form of judicial directions or expert evidence—might be effective in addressing problematic attitudes.

中文翻译：

---

我们对强奸神话和陪审员决策了解多少？

本文提供了压倒性的证据，证明陪审员对强奸的偏见和错误信念会影响他们对强奸案件的证据评估和决策。该论文首次汇集了定量和定性研究中的可用证据（其中大部分不在法律期刊中，而是在科学媒体中发现，最常见的是那些专注于实验心理学的媒体）。定量研究表明，模拟陪审员在所谓的“强奸神话量表”上的分数是他们对责任、责备和（最重要的）判决的判断的重要预测指标。定性研究表明，陪审员经常在模拟陪审团审议中对“真正的”强奸受害者的行为方式以及“真正的”强奸是什么样子表达有问题的观点，即使那些在抽象强奸神话量表上得分相对较低的人也可以在审议时表达偏见信念在特定情况下。这些研究在其现实性方面各不相同，但重要的是要注意，这里报告的一些研究是高度现实的审判重建，涉及从社区中抽取的陪审员的代表性样本、现场审判重建、主要证据和交叉审查、准确的法律指导和小组审议。