Dr. Jonathan Reid, together with co-authors Sidra Hashmi (Queen's University) and Samantha Brown (University of North Florida), published a new article at American Journal of Criminal Justice. The article, titled "Sexual Assault, Female Immigrant Victims, and Judicial Focal Concerns in U.S. and Canadian Courts" explores the persistence and resistance to rape myths in US and Canadian courts. Specifically, they draw on the focal concerns perspective to explore the persistence of rape myths in cases involving immigrant women survivors. Results from qualitative content analysis of judicial rhetoric in both countries from 1996 to 2021 reveal a nuanced picture. Notably, judges reinforced some rape myths by, for example, being less likely to uphold convictions in cases that did not involve weapons or that occurred in private settings. However, judges challenged rape myths, with some judges explicitly considering the vulnerability of immigrant women, further contributing to the complexities of their decision-making process.
The article tries to understand both when are rape myths upheld and when are they resisted, but also what are the differences between US and Canadian courts in dealing with cases like this. For example, the American sample included only appellate cases, so judges spent less time summarizing the facts of the case. Therefore, they also focused less on suspect blameworthiness, as the legal questions at hand often focused on other matters. On the other hand, only the Canadian cases discussed emotional harm associated with the victimization experience. To the best of our knowledge, there is no legislation either requiring or prohibiting judges in either country to consider this type of impact; the divergence in each country’s evaluation of emotional harm might reflect a broader cultural difference within the legal systems.
Congratulations Dr. Reid! This is an interesting and needed analysis!