What do we know about ‘rape myth’ research and the claim that there is ‘overwhelming evidence’ that juries are prejudiced in rape trials?

This paper examines the research by Fiona Leverick and demonstrates the methodological flaws in much of the ‘rape myth’ and mock jury research. Other ideas about rape myths and the ‘justice gap’ are explored and seen to be questionable. Furthermore, through a detailed examination of the rape myth acceptance scales, which Leverick describes as being ‘scientifically validated’, we trace the ideological and political-ethical nature of these scales and show a clear one-sidedness in how researchers have used them. Most particularly, we find that there is one-sidedness when it comes to the question of victim empathy. One result of this is that mock jury research has indicated that victim empathetic participants are finding individuals guilty of rape, despite the lack of evidence, and almost nothing has been said about the potential miscarriages of justice being demonstrated in these cases. The argument is thus made that rather than there being overwhelming evidence of rape myth prejudices amongst the public, there appears to be a one-sidedness amongst most rape myth researchers that is encouraging a sentiment of victim empathy that could distort the principles of justice regarding defendants being innocent until proven guilty based on a need to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.