NCJ Number
74360
Date Published
1980
Length
26 pages
Annotation
This Australian article examines the limitations of the jury in rape trials and the restrictions imposed by rules of evidence.
Abstract
Recently the competence of the jury to render impartial verdicts, especially concerning sexual offenses, has come under criticism. Though attacks on the jury's impartiality usually focus on racial prejudice, studies indicate that jurors also show bias against particular types of rape victims, such as unmarried women, if they are nonvirgins, divorcees, or prostitutes. Regardless of the sexual composition of the jury, jurors tend to show favor towards the rapist in such cases and to argue that the victim precipitated the crime. Furthermore, the jury frequently does not receive the type of objective, scientific evidence that is necessary for the verdict; rather, in admitting evidence, judges make the juries focus on the victim's character instead of focusing on the accused. Thus, the victim's sexual history is governed by lenient rules of evidence and is easily admitted as evidence in court. Rather than changing the composition of the jury as has been suggested in England and Australia, the article argues that the general administration of courts and jury should be improved. Proceedings should be made more understandable, facilities such as day-care centers must be made available to jurors, and financial compensation should be provided. In addition, juries must be educated on issues relating to the specific offense they are deciding. In the case of rape, this would include alerting the jury to specific rules of evidence and making them aware of their own prejudices. The article includes reference notes and footnotes. For related articles, see NCJ 74354.