Detalhes do Documento

Gendered assumptions within judicial reasoning shape how cases of sexual violence (SV) are interpreted, prosecuted, and adjudicated. This systematic review synthesizes empirical evidence on how gender stereotypes and cultural myths influence judicial and prosecutorial perceptions of adult female victims, primarily in SV cases, with limited evidence from intimate partner violence (IPV). Twenty-eight studies, with judges, prosecutors, and jury eligible mock jurors’ samples were identified across five databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Medline, PsycINFO, and SCOPUS), following PRISMA guidelines. Findings suggest that gender stereotypes function as heuristic frameworks shaping the construction and discounting of victim credibility, the interpretation of evidence, and the attribution of responsibility. These patterns were most consistently observed in SV contexts, where deviations from the “ideal victim” stereotype were associated with increased victim-blaming and reduced case progression. Evidence from IPV studies, although limited, suggests distinct credibility dynamics linked to ongoing relational contexts. The review highlights the persistence of gendered biases across decision-maker types and study designs. Conclusions are therefore tempered by the heterogeneity of the evidence base and the predominance of SV research. The findings support the need for structural, procedural, and training-based interventions to reduce bias and promote more equitable judicial outcomes.