False admissions of guilt associated with wrongful convictions undermine people’s perceptions of exonerees.

Abstract

Exonerees are stigmatized, especially those who have falsely confessed. False confessions prompt a series of negative perceptions that ultimately undermine people's willingness to support reintegration aids. We extended the nascent body of literature on exoneree stigma by exploring first whether false guilty pleas can precipitate a similar series of perceptions and judgments and, second, the role of exoneree responsibility as an underlying mechanism. Participants (N ϭ 290) were randomly assigned to read 1 of 4 news stories in which the exoneree falsely confessed, falsely pleaded guilty, both, or neither and then offered their perceptions and judgments of the exoneree. Unique main effects, but not an interaction, among exonerees who falsely confessed or falsely pleaded guilty were observed. These exonerees were seen as less intelligent, which was associated with beliefs that the exoneree suffered mental health issues, was more responsible for the wrongful conviction, and not entirely innocent. The series of appraisals culminated in judgments that exonerees who falsely admitted guilt were less deserving of reintegration support than exonerees who did not falsely admit guilt. We end with discussions of how the results advance our understanding of the basic stigma against exonerees and practical implications for innocents in the legal system.

Cumulative Disadvantage: A Psychological Framework for Understanding How Innocence Can Lead to Confession, Wrongful Conviction, and Beyond

“…False confessions can be so influential as to precipitate a series of negative judgments of these individuals as lacking intelligence, suffering from mental health issues, not entirely innocent, and, ultimately, less deserving of government-sponsored reintegration aids such as psychological and career counseling and job training (Scherr, Normile, & Putney, 2018). Along with replicating the undermining series of negative judgments associated with wrongful convictions based on false confessions, the same series of judgments follows after innocents offer false guilty pleas (Scherr et al, 2019).…”

The Exoneree Health and Life Experiences (ExHaLE) Study: Trauma Exposure and Mental Health among Wrongly Convicted Individuals

“…Third, there is mounting evidence that exonerees who falsely confessed to the crime of which they were wrongly convicted are more stigmatized than other exonerees. In various studies, laypeople rated false confessors as less warm, intelligent, and mentally healthy than other exonerees (Clow & Leach, 2015b;Scherr et al, 2018b;, blamed them more heavily for their wrongful conviction (Kukucka & Evelo, 2019;Savage et al, 2018;Scherr et al, 2020), and saw them as less deserving of financial compensation (Kukucka & Evelo, 2019) or reintegration services such as psychological counseling (Scherr et al, 2018b). As a result, false confessors may show poorer mental health than other exonerees, but no study has tested this possibility.…”

False confessions predict a delay between release from incarceration and official exoneration.

“…Suspects who confess are virtually guaranteed to be convicted during a jury trial (Drizin & Leo, 2004) and are more likely to falsely plead guilty than those who do not confess (National Registry of Exonerations, 2015). Postconviction, appellate judges overwhelmingly strike down false confessors’ appeals (Garrett, 2010), and laypeople fail to entirely believe in their innocence (Kukucka & Evelo, 2019; Scherr, Normile, et al, 2020). The observed effects illustrate additional residual effects that false confessors experience, namely delayed exonerations.…”

“…Growing evidence continues to demonstrate that negative inferences based on false confessions persist even after exoneration. Experimental evidence using community and student samples indicates that exonerees who falsely confessed are deemed less deserving of financial compensation (Kukucka & Evelo, 2019; Luna & Kieckhaeifer, 2018), offered lower starting wages (Kukucka et al, 2020), and judged as less intelligent, suffering from mental health issues, not entirely innocent, and, ultimately, less deserving of governmental sponsored reintegration (Scherr, Normile, et al, 2020; Scherr, Normile, & Putney, 2018; see also Clow & Leach, 2015).…”