A few weeks ago, graffiti appeared on the wall opposite my university office. “Fuck Waiton Sexist Cunt!” it read—not the language one would expect from someone fighting sexism. Then there was more: “Fuck Waiton Rapist Sympathizer.” By the time I saw this one, it was already being painted over by university staff. Within days, I was being condemned by politicians and rape crisis groups. The cause? According to media reports, I had facilitated a talk by a “rapists’ rights group,” one that had traumatized students, and seemingly many more who weren’t there.
Before explaining what actually happened, it is worth giving a little background. As a criminologist, I have spent the past few years studying the way that sexual violence is understood and policed. My concern is that its political prioritization risks producing a new type of moral panic and a new form of authoritarianism. Reflecting this concern, I wrote a paper questioning the idea that the Scottish public believes in rape myths, something that is seen as leading to juries being prejudiced against accusers. In order to counter these supposed myths, the Scottish Government in 2023 proposed a pilot project in which rape trials would be carried out with only a judge and no jury.
The government and senior legal figures have been pushing to increase the conviction rate in rape cases for some time. Along with eliminating jury trials, officials have sought to do this by putting defendants “on trial” in civil courts—even after these men have gone through a criminal trial and been released.
Part of the problem, and arguably a key reason that these new initiatives have been developed is that there is a complete one-sidedness when looking at the policing of rape, within the academy, the justice system, and the Scottish Parliament. A single outlook is being uncritically adopted, based on the theories of what can be called victim feminism.