What question did this study set out to answer?

This study aims to understand how mock jurors construct narratives around consent and victim behavior in rape trials.

Making Sense of Consent: A Qualitative Analysis of Australian Mock Juror Decision-Making in a Rape Trial

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

This study aims to understand how mock jurors construct narratives around consent and victim behavior in rape trials.
Qualitative analysis of responses from N=250 jury-eligible Australian community members reading a trial transcript.
Participants provided open-ended explanations for their verdicts, analyzed using a hybrid reflexive thematic analysis.
Themes included perceptions of consent, credibility, and the impact of traditional narratives on juror reasoning.
Jurors' narratives displayed a double standard, where intoxication decreased defendant responsibility but raised doubts about the complainant's credibility.
Judicial directions about the variability of victim responses were infrequently considered in jurors' decision-making processes.
Six key themes emerged, highlighting the influence of societal scripts and rape myths on juror reasoning.

No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.

Qualitative analysis explores how mock jurors interpret consent and credibility in rape trials, indicating challenges for judicial guidance.

Wieberneit et al. (2026) studied this question.

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Qualitative analysis explores how mock jurors interpret consent and credibility in rape trials, indicating challenges for judicial guidance.