Whilst the democratic function of the English jury trial remains cherished among legal scholars who look at oppressive judicial systems elsewhere, the low rate of conviction for cases of rape, has led to vast critical consideration over recent years. Indeed, there exists a growing number of critics who seek to abolish trial by jury altogether for this type of crime, and many others who feel strongly that major reforms are needed within English rape trials. The current thesis thereby examined the effect of language in court on jurors, to identify if positively or negatively valanced language influenced juror decision-making, in the first empirical study (Experiment 1). Furthermore, in the second empirical study (Experiment 2), the negative impact of rape myth beliefs upon juror decisions was re-examined, adopting a more sophisticated design. Here, a five-distinct factors of rape mythology established from recent psychometric testing which is largely unaccounted for within previous studies. The observed influence of distinct rape myth sub-scale scores was then tested as separate predictors of juror decision-making. Finally, taking account of the finding obtained within experiments one and two, the third empirical study (Experiment 3), sought to create and evaluate the effectiveness of an educational intervention, designed to reduce the negative influence of rape myth beliefs upon rape trial juror decisions. Moreover, the intervention was delivered to mock jurors, in the form of either abstract (rape myths not linked to the facts of the case) or applied (rape myths directly linked) myth debunking education, to examine the impact on juror judgements. Overall, research findings revealed that negative language towards the complainant was remembered most often and led to participants morally disengaging from the victim, which in turn, increased not guilty verdict preferences. Additionally, heightened scores in distinct rape myth factors that were based around victim conduct, were found to be significant predictors of increased belief in defendant testimony, in turn, led to an increased likelihood of returning a not guilty verdict. Finally, both educational interventions significantly reduced rape myth acceptance and increased guilty verdicts in comparison to the control group. Taken together, these findings strongly support the assertion that within rape trials, juror decisions are directly related with the attitudes that jurors bring to trial, namely their endorsement of distinct types of rape mythology. Alongside offering a new means by which solutions to the rape myth problem can and ought to be tested by jury researchers, the current findings may also have an important impact on current policy reform debates within rape trial justice.