The rape statistics for England and Wales are doing the rounds again. Every year we are informed that only between two and six per cent of rapes end in a conviction. Fingers are pointed at the police, the prosecution service and at the sexist juries, who, we are informed, are prejudiced and have heads filled with “rape myths” that help to explain the shamefully low conviction rates.

This month, Scotland’s Justice Secretary, Keith Brown announced that “radical” reforms of the criminal justice system are to be considered to improve sex crime conviction rates. These could include specialist sex crime courts and the abolition of the “not proven” verdict. Earlier this year Lord Justice Clerk Lady Dorrian suggested that special courts could get rid of jury trials in rape cases and have trials overseen by a single judge.

But before we all hang our heads in shame at the patriarchal oppressive society we clearly must live in, it is worth considering that today’s story of our uncaring sexist criminal justice system may well be a moral panic.

The point about moral panics is that they tend to reflect modern elite prejudices. In the past they were generated by a conservative establishment. But today’s elites tend not to be conservative, they are far more “gender aware” and “caring” than their predecessors.

Moral panics are generated by the elite prejudices of the time. Consequently, they tend to influence policy discussions, political rhetoric and the press. This helps to explain why the extremely low conviction statistics are rarely if ever fully explained or contextualised.

The two to six per cent conviction rate relates to all reported rapes. These include false allegations, cases where there is little or no evidence and those where allegations are withdrawn. Other serious crimes have a similar percentage of conviction rates based on initial reporting - it is not specific to rape.

It is rarely clarified by the media that we are not talking about cases that make it to court. Here, in fact, we find that conviction rates tend to be over 50 per cent. A figure that is again comparable with other serious crimes.

Similarly, the idea that juries are prejudiced when it comes to rape trials is often discussed as a fact. Research using mock, rather than real juries, suggests this to be true and has influenced the proposed changes to the prosecution process in Scotland.

Indeed the 2016 Abusive Behaviour and Sexual Harm (Scotland) Act already encourages judges to influence the jury based on the presumption that there is a need to “challenge any preconceived notions jurors may have”.

However, research carried out with real juries has found that the idea of prejudiced juries is the real myth.

Slamming the myth of backward sexist juries, Professor Cheryl Thomas notes that the use of opinion polls, anecdotes and inadequate research was being used rather than detailed research that had already shown juries convict more times than they acquit.

Thomas’ intensive research with juries found that, “hardly any jurors believe what are often referred to as widespread myths and stereotypes about rape and sexual assault”.

The Scottish justice system has already been influenced by the idea of “rape myths” even though there is absolutely no evidence of actual juries having preconceived notions about rape.

Discussing these findings, QC Thomas Ross told Scottish Legal News that, “the ‘rape myth’ argument has been used to justify the abolition of the requirement for corroboration and even used to argue for the removal of juries in sexual offence trials – despite the complete absence of any evidence to support their existence”.

Ross hopes that Professor Thomas’ work will lead to an evidence-based policy “free of hyperbole”. So far however, to the detriment of justice, the new elites’ prejudices about the public and their moralising around perceived “victims” continues to dominate the headlines and to sustain the moral panic about rape convictions.

Our columns are a platform for writers to express their opinions. They do not necessarily represent the views of the Herald