Attitudes towards sex offenders regarding competency, liability, voluntariness of offence, and disposal: the influence of being classified as having a learning disability

Abstract

The principal aim of this study was to investigate whether attitudes towards judicial competency, legal liability, voluntariness of offence and judicial disposal options were influenced by known classification of an offender as learning disabled compared to an offender with a suggested intellectual disability, but not formally classified. Subsidiary aims were to explore participant attitudes based upon group membership and parental status. The sample consisted of 101 participants (69 undergraduate nursing students and 32 from the general population). Participants were requested to complete a questionnaire assessing their attitudes within the aforementioned domains and towards ascribed levels of victim parental responsibility. Fifty participants completed a questionnaire designed for the purpose of the study where the offence scenario depicted made reference to the offender having a formal classification of learning disability. Fifty-one participants completed the same questionnaire where an intellectual disability was suggested but not formally stated in the form of classification. Results indicated that classification did significantly influence attitudes in most domains irrespective of group. The nursing group attributed greater levels of competency to the offenders depicted. No interactions between variables were observed. The reasons for and implications of these findings, limitations and recommendations for future research are explored.

Ten Year Research Update (2001–2010): Evaluations for Competence to Stand Trial (Adjudicative Competence)

“…They advocated for regular audits of these reports to identify gaps in knowledge and practice. Price‐Jones and Barrowcliff () concluded that a learning disability can influence perceptions and attributions regarding an individual's AC. They opined that the presence or suspicion of a learning disability should prompt an assessment of AC as opposed to leading to an assumption that one is not competent.…”

Ethical Issues in Third-Party Disclosure inAtkinsCases

“…If a third-party informant is told the purpose of the evaluation is to rule in (or out) ID, these negative and inaccurate stereotypes of individuals with ID may be mobilized. Furthering this notion, introduction of this label (i.e., ID) may result in third-party informants viewing the evaluee as less responsible, similar to participants in previous research (e.g., Najdowski et al, 2009;Price-Jones & Barrowcliff, 2010), than if this label were not introduced. Providing information about a potential ID diagnosis and the purpose of the inquiry (i.e., sentencing) may trigger these implicit stereotypes, thereby influencing reports of the evaluee's functional abilities in the direction of exaggerated impairments.…”

“…As a result, let us look at the influence of the ID label in this context. Price-Jones and Barrowcliff (2010) found that hypothetical persons labeled "learning disabled" were rated less competent and less responsible for a hypothetical sexual offense than persons without such a label. Similarly, Najdowski, Bottoms, and Vargas (2009) found that a hypothetical juvenile labeled as "mild MR" was perceived as less deviant and less responsible than an identical individual with "average IQ."…”