Siobhan Weare

This chapter offers some concluding reflections on rape trial research. The editors consider a number of key themes which have emerged from the contributions to this collection and offer some observations on the future of empirical research in this ever-evolving and complex area.

Rape trials are inherently complex, often operating differently from other criminal trials. These trials are also complicated by the impact of societal

This chapter provides an overview of the context for this book and its position within prevailing scholarship on empirical research on rape trials, specifically how it brings together best practice methodological guidance for a variety of forms of empirical inquiry in this area. An overview of the structure of the book and of each of the contributions is also provided.

Current legislative constraints in England and Wales restrict the study of jury decision-making to the use of mock juries, wherein research participants make decisions in a simulated trial context. Despite serving as a valuable tool to understand the ways in which actual jurors and juries operate, mock jury research has faced criticism from scholars and practitioners, particularly in relation to methodological approaches taken and ethical concerns which may arise. These issues may risk compromising the advantages of mock jury research and may also influence the validity of research findings. This chapter explores some common components of mock jury research and draws upon interdisciplinary insights from psychology and law to delineate how researchers can manage methodological and ethical decisions within mock jury paradigms. The chapter presents empirical examples and offers reflections from the authors’ own mock jury research to provide insights into how they have identified and addressed common concerns. In this context, the chapter highlights recommendations for researchers undertaking mock jury research which aim to minimise any adverse effects resulting from methodological and ethical choices, and maximise the extent to which such research is fit for purpose.

Research examining perceptions of male victims of sexual violence has been neglected, particularly regarding jury attitudes toward these victims. It is important to recognize whether jurors, as community decision-makers, hold falsehoods, stereotypes, and gendered beliefs about male victims of sexual violence and whether these beliefs affect their legal attitudes and verdict decisions. A systematic review of peer-reviewed, experimental studies published between 1980 and 2024 was conducted. A total of 11 databases, alongside ascendancy, descendancy, and gray literature searches across two additional platforms, were searched using 18 search strings, yielding 21 sources which met the pre-registered inclusion criteria. Reviewers assessed all sources in terms of quality using two separate measures. Synthesis of the reviewed sources suggests that mock jurors are typically less punitive toward defendants in sexual violence cases with male victims, compared to those with female victims. While half of the sources find no effect of victim gender on mock jurors’ verdict decisions, this is accompanied by findings indicating that mock jurors hold harsher attitudes and beliefs toward male victims. Several sources also suggest that male victims’ ethnicity, sexuality, and gender identity are additional characteristics that affect mock jury attitudes and legal outcomes. Mock jurors were typically more lenient toward alleged perpetrators of sexual violence and held harsher and more punitive attitudes toward Black, gay, or transgender male victims in sexual violence cases. Finally, we discuss implications for policy and practice, and recommendations for future research.

Existing research explores ethical and methodological considerations associated with interviewing men, including male survivors of domestic abuse, and interviewing female survivors of domestic and sexual abuse. However, there is no comparable body of research that specifically considers interviewing male survivors of sexual violence and abuse. Reflecting upon our experiences of interviewing 32 male survivors of female-perpetrated sexual violence, we critically discuss four key ethical and methodological issues that arose; the challenges around recruiting male survivor participants; the interview process; the impacts of gender dynamics between interviewers and participants; and the importance of research to participants. Based on our reflections we make a number of recommendations for scholars who are conducting future research with male survivors of sexual violence and abuse.

The issue of men’s sexual victimization in the context of intimate partner violence (IPV) where the perpetrator is female has received minimal attention. This article brings together and analyses data from two empirical studies conducted in the United Kingdom—one exploring men’s experiences of being forced-to-penetrate women and another investigating men’s experiences of female-perpetrated IPV. Analysis of the data found that men experienced sexual violence alongside a range of other abusive behaviors, but that there was a clear relationship between the sexual violence and physical violence/ force, and coercive and controlling behaviors that they experienced. These novel insights improve our understanding about men’s sexual and domestic violence victimization, as well as challenge gender and sex-role stereotypes around men and masculinity and the (im)possibility of them experiencing sexual and domestic abuse from a female partner.

Extensive research exists in relation to the Sexual Offences Act 2003, in particular, rape and assault by penetration, the two most serious offences involving non-consensual sexual penetration of the victim. However, the other penetrative offence, causing a person to engage in (penetrative) sexual activity without consent, found in section 4 of the Act, has, to date, been excluded from national statistics and research. This article analyses novel data relating to the section 4 penetrative offence, collected using freedom of information requests from 37 police forces in England and Wales over a 13-year period. The data explore victim and offender demographics and outcomes after detection. The findings challenge understandings around who the victims and perpetrators of penetrative sexual offences are.

This article reports findings from the first empirical study in the United Kingdom on forced-to-penetrate cases, where a man is forced to penetrate a woman either orally, vaginally, or anally with his penis and without his consent. Using an online survey, data were collected in relation to the physical and emotional impacts experienced by 154 men following their most recent forced-to-penetrate experience. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected through the use of closed and open-ended survey questions, where participants were asked about the context and circumstances of their most recent experience and whether they had suffered any physical injuries. A unipolar scale was used to measure the emotional impact on participants, with an open-ended follow-up question gathering qualitative data. The majority of participants did not report suffering physical injuries, but those that did suffered injuries to their genitalia and upper bodies. Participants most frequently indicated that their most recent forced-to-penetrate experience had had a severe negative emotional impact on them. Negative emotional impacts disclosed by participants were complex, ranging from anxiety and depression, to self-harm and suicidal thoughts and attempts. Quantitative analysis highlighted that when certain variables were present, participants more frequently reported physical injuries, as well as higher average levels of emotional harm. The findings from the study challenge existing understandings of masculinity and rigid sex and gender roles, which assume that men will always consent to sexual activity with a woman and that they cannot or do not experience emotional or physical harms at the hands of a woman. The findings are also considered in relation their implications for law and legal discourse, where evidence of harm is used as a justification for the criminalisation of certain behaviors and the severity of the legal response through sentencing.