OF 'NORMAL SEX' AND 'REAL RAPE': EXPLORING THE USE OF SOCIO-SEXUAL SCRIPTS IN (MOCK) JURY DELIBERATION

This article explores a series of 27 jury deliberations, undertaken by volunteer members of the public, following their observation of a mini-rape trial reconstruction. While research with 'real' jurors is prohibited in England and Wales, previous social attitude and experimental studies have suggested that jurors in sexual assault trials may well be influenced by dubious stereotypes about rape, rapists and rape victims. In this article, the authors explore the relationship between these (mis)conceptions about rape and public expectations regarding socio-sexual conduct more broadly. The authors examine the scripts that were invoked, defended and relied upon by mock jurors in order to distinguish 'normal' (hetero)sexual seduction from rape. More specifically, this article explores participants' expectations (both descriptive and normative) in relation to the communication of consent, the role of male initiative, and the location, timing of and parties to sexual intercourse, as well as the relevance of the use of physical force, the fact of the parties' drunkenness or the nature of their respective post-coital conduct.