In the courtroom, credibility is the key to justice for crime victims. Victims who establish credibility in court are more likely to win their case. In Sweden, as in several Nordic countries, the courts use ordinary citizens representing the public, lay-judges, to assess criminal cases. Our study explores the specific challenges lay-judges face in assessing victims’ credibility.
We have identified three dimensions of credibility that the lay-judges consider; appearances, narratives, and emotions. These three aspects are intertwined, creating a layered approach to evaluating credibility where each layer introduces specific expectations on the victim.
The first type of credibility is related to appearances, like clothing, body language and demeanour, which typically (in)form lay-judges’ first impressions of the victim. For instance, a young man in a hoodie may seem disrespectful but genuine, while an older man in formal attire may project credibility but risk appearing overly polished. Therefore, appearances need to be balanced to be viewed as credible. This also underscores a complex dilemma for lay-judges as they recognize that superficial factors should not impact their assessment, yet struggle to set these biases aside.
Narrative credibility relates to how victims recount their experiences. Lay-judges want victims to tell a story that is both coherent and consistent, but without seeming rehearsed. If a victim recalls too many details, it can appear rehearsed; while if they recall too few, this may be seen as unreliable. Hence, narrative credibility is a difficult balancing act for victims. For lay-judges, expecting coherence that is “just right” becomes complicated, as they navigate the tension between a credible narrative and the understanding that traumatic memories may be fragmented.
Emotional credibility adds a third layer of difficulty in assessing victim credibility. Lay-judges expect a level of emotional display that feels appropriate for the described victimization, yet defining that appropriateness is fraught with intersectional biases. For instance, a tearful woman may evoke sympathy, while a tearful man may face scepticism. Too much emotion can seem manipulative, while too little might appear questionably detached. These emotional credibility assessments often align with cultural stereotypes that lay-judges know they should not rely on, creating another balancing act for lay-judges between empathy, gut-instincts, and their duty to remain impartial.
When it comes to the implication for victims, this study underlines how credibility is a layered process between at least three types of credibility. Furthermore, these layers require a difficult balancing act for both victims as well as for the lay-judges assessing them.
Researchers at Stockholm university, Department of Criminology
Read more here: First Impressions Last? Lay-Judges’ Assessments of Credible Victimhood
About the authors
Anita Heber is a professor at the Department of Criminology at Stockholm University. She does research in victimology, organised crime, and sex trafficking.
Tea Fredriksson is a senior lecturer at the Department of Criminology at Stockholm University. Her research focuses on spaces and processes that (re)configure belonging and otherness, such as prisons, courthouses, and desistance from crime.