Rape as 'one person's word against another's': challenging the conventional wisdom
According to the conventional wisdom, rape is generally a case of ‘one person’s word against another’s’ and, in the absence of independent evidence, judgements regarding the truth or otherwise of an allegation are influenced by ‘rape myths’ and gender stereotypes. The meaning of ‘one person’s word a...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
SAGE Publications
2018
|
| Online Access: | https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/50925/ |
| _version_ | 1848798370040119296 |
|---|---|
| author | Saunders, Candida L. |
| author_facet | Saunders, Candida L. |
| author_sort | Saunders, Candida L. |
| building | Nottingham Research Data Repository |
| collection | Online Access |
| description | According to the conventional wisdom, rape is generally a case of ‘one person’s word against another’s’ and, in the absence of independent evidence, judgements regarding the truth or otherwise of an allegation are influenced by ‘rape myths’ and gender stereotypes. The meaning of ‘one person’s word against another’s’, however, and the extent to which it accurately describes the evidence in most rape cases, or usefully explains case disposal, are largely unexplored. This article subjects the conventional wisdom of rape as ‘one person’s word against another’s’, and the implicit claims and assumptions underpinning it, to close critical scrutiny. Drawing on original empirical data, I argue that the concept of ‘one person’s word against another’s’ is vague, ambiguous, and uninformative. It tells us virtually nothing about what rape cases look like evidentially, still less about case progression, and presents a partial and misleading view of English criminal proceedings and the process of proof. If we are to better understand attrition in rape cases, we need to meaningfully engage with the contentious issue of witness credibility and reliability—not only in the absence of independent evidence that supports or corroborates a witness’s account, but in the presence of evidence that undermines or contradicts it. |
| first_indexed | 2025-11-14T20:18:41Z |
| format | Article |
| id | nottingham-50925 |
| institution | University of Nottingham Malaysia Campus |
| institution_category | Local University |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2025-11-14T20:18:41Z |
| publishDate | 2018 |
| publisher | SAGE Publications |
| recordtype | eprints |
| repository_type | Digital Repository |
| spelling | nottingham-509252018-04-14T12:45:26Z https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/50925/ Rape as 'one person's word against another's': challenging the conventional wisdom Saunders, Candida L. According to the conventional wisdom, rape is generally a case of ‘one person’s word against another’s’ and, in the absence of independent evidence, judgements regarding the truth or otherwise of an allegation are influenced by ‘rape myths’ and gender stereotypes. The meaning of ‘one person’s word against another’s’, however, and the extent to which it accurately describes the evidence in most rape cases, or usefully explains case disposal, are largely unexplored. This article subjects the conventional wisdom of rape as ‘one person’s word against another’s’, and the implicit claims and assumptions underpinning it, to close critical scrutiny. Drawing on original empirical data, I argue that the concept of ‘one person’s word against another’s’ is vague, ambiguous, and uninformative. It tells us virtually nothing about what rape cases look like evidentially, still less about case progression, and presents a partial and misleading view of English criminal proceedings and the process of proof. If we are to better understand attrition in rape cases, we need to meaningfully engage with the contentious issue of witness credibility and reliability—not only in the absence of independent evidence that supports or corroborates a witness’s account, but in the presence of evidence that undermines or contradicts it. SAGE Publications 2018-04-01 Article PeerReviewed application/pdf en https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/50925/1/Rape%20as%20%27One%20Person%27s%20Word%20against%20Another%27s%27.pdf Saunders, Candida L. (2018) Rape as 'one person's word against another's': challenging the conventional wisdom. International Journal of Evidence and Proof, 22 (2). pp. 161-181. ISSN 1740-5572 http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1365712718766478 doi:10.1177/1365712718766478 doi:10.1177/1365712718766478 |
| spellingShingle | Saunders, Candida L. Rape as 'one person's word against another's': challenging the conventional wisdom |
| title | Rape as 'one person's word against another's': challenging the conventional wisdom |
| title_full | Rape as 'one person's word against another's': challenging the conventional wisdom |
| title_fullStr | Rape as 'one person's word against another's': challenging the conventional wisdom |
| title_full_unstemmed | Rape as 'one person's word against another's': challenging the conventional wisdom |
| title_short | Rape as 'one person's word against another's': challenging the conventional wisdom |
| title_sort | rape as 'one person's word against another's': challenging the conventional wisdom |
| url | https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/50925/ https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/50925/ https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/50925/ |