The objective of this study is to investigate the relationship between modern racism and rape victim and perpetrator blame, and rape perception. Participants from both a community population (n = 211) and a student population (n = 200) read a rape vignette and provided their judgements of blame towards a victim and perpetrator, their perception of the event as rape, and later answered the modern racism scale. Results showed a significant positive relationship between modern racism and rape victim blame (r = .35, R2 ×× 100 = 12.1%), while modern racism had a significant negative relationship with perpetrator blame (r = −.27, R2 ×× 100 = 7.5%) and rape perception (r = −.29, R2 ×× 100 = 8.7%). Implications for the criminal justice system as well as suggestions for future research were discussed.

Under de senaste decennierna har Sverige genomgått stora demografiska och politiska förändringar. Tillsammans har dessa inneburit att Sverige idag samtidigt är ett av Europas mest sekulariserade och mest mångreligiösa länder. Den snabba demografiska förändring Sverige har genomgått har ställt många inför nya, stora och i vissa fall skyndsamma kunskapsbehov samtidigt är forskningen om situationen delvis eftersatt. I denna rapport identifieras hur den nya situationen relaterar till det lagstadgade uppdrag som svenskt polisväsende, vård, skola och offentlig förvaltning har. Den forskning som gjorts inom dessa områden sammanfattas och de viktigaste forskningsbehoven identifieras.

Judges should not be influenced by legally irrelevant circumstances in their legal decision making and judges generally believe that they manage legally irrelevant circumstances well. The purpose of this experimental study was to investigate whether this self-image is correct. Swedish judges (N = 256) read a vignette depicting a case of libel, where a female student had claimed on her blog that she had been sexually harassed by a named male professor. The professor had sued the student for libel and the student retracted her claim during the hearing. Half of the judges received irrelevant information - that the professor himself had been convicted of libel a year earlier, while the other half did not receive this information. For the outcome variable, the judges were asked to state how much compensation the student should pay the professor. Those judges who received information about the professor himself having been convicted of libel stated that he should be given significantly less compensation than those who did not receive the irrelevant information. The results show that the judges’ decision was affected by legally irrelevant circumstances. Implications for research and practice are discussed