Give the kid a break—but only if he’s straight: Retributive motives drive biases against gay youth in ambiguous punishment contexts.

Abstract

Two studies addressed how people punish juvenile sex offenders in ambiguous punishment contexts. Sex offender registry laws now make voluntary sexual activity between juveniles a registration-worthy offense in the U.S. Using contemporary prejudice theories as a theoretical framework, we tested whether the ambiguity surrounding the application of these laws to juveniles provides a context for expression of prejudice against gay youth. In the ambiguous context of 2 juveniles having consensual sex, people supported sex offender registration more for gay, versus heterosexual, offenders. This punishment discrimination did not emerge, however, in the societally less ambiguous context of an adult having sex with a juvenile. Study 2 revealed that punishment discrimination again emerged against gay male juveniles but not lesbian juveniles. Across both studies, punishment discrimination against gay juveniles was consistently mediated by retributive motives (moral outrage), but less consistently by utilitarian motives (concern about protecting society)-the stated legislative purpose of registration.

The effects of body‐worn camera footage and eyewitness race on jurors' perceptions of police use of force

“…In particular, moral outrage and empathy are two key psychological constructs evoked by emotionally evocative evidence. When jurors are morally outraged about a crime (see, e.g., Salerno, Murphy, & Bottoms, ; Salerno & Peter‐Hagene, ; Wiley & Bottoms, ) or when their empathy is raised (e.g., Bottoms, Peter‐Hagene, Stevenson, Wiley, & Mitchell, ; Deitz, Blackwell, Daley, & Bentley, ; Haegerich & Bottoms, ), it affects their judgments such as verdicts, punishment decisions, and perceptions of victim and defendant credibility as well as responsibility. Theoretically, then, when visual evidence is presented (compared with when not presented), empathy for a subject experiencing police use of force, and moral outrage toward the police officer exercising the force, may be stronger.…”

Profiles of juveniles with sex offense charges referred for competence evaluations

“…Moreover, considering that many states require JSOs to register as sex offenders [56] another line of research might consider whether JSOs who are referred for competence evaluations should be questioned more thoroughly than non‐JSOs about the potential long‐term consequences of their charges. The sex offender registry is a public database of information of individuals who have sexually offended such as name, address, offense, and photograph that is often required for life and contributes to stigmatization of these individuals that may impact housing and employment opportunities [57]. Do youth understand/appreciate what it means to be placed on the registry and does this impact their ability to meet the first clause of the Dusky standard (i.e., understanding and appreciation of charges and potential outcomes)?…”

The influence of a juvenile’s abuse history on support for sex offender registration.

“…The more jurors endorsed such uncontrollable attributions, the more they supported a sentence of life versus death. In addition, retributive goals play a major role in explaining public support for registry laws: People are less likely to support registry laws for juveniles who commit less versus more severe sex offenses ( Salerno, Najdowski et al, 2010 ), who perpetrate offenses against victims of the same race versus different race ( Stevenson, Najdowski, Bottoms, & Haegerich, 2009 ), and who perpetrate male-on-female versus male-on-male offenses ( Salerno et al, 2014 ) because they are less motivated to punish such juveniles. Thus, believing that juveniles perpetrate sex offenses because they were sexually abused themselves could have a mitigating effect on registration support.…”

“…Further, it is possible that extralegal factors might alter the thresholds individuals have for determining whether certain sexual behaviors are labeled as normative versus deviant. For instance, Salerno et al (2014) found that participants supported registration more for a less serious crime when the male juvenile offender was accused of having consensual sex with another underage boy than with an underage girl. Yet, this antigay bias did not emerge in the context of a serious crime involving an adult perpetrator and the underage victim.…”

“…When asked about specific cases, participants were significantly less likely to support registration in cases involving (a) younger as compared to older juveniles and (b) less severe offenses, such as sexting, sexual harassment, and statutory rape (offenses for which juveniles are registered in some states), as compared to more forced and violent forms of rape. Indeed, support for juvenile sex offender registration is influenced by a variety of factors, including the education level of the individual ( Stevenson, Smith, Sekely, & Farnum, 2013 ) and the race ( Stevenson, Sorenson, Smith, Sekely, & Dzwairo, 2009 ) and sexual orientation ( Salerno, Murphy, & Bottoms, 2014 ) of the offender and victim.…”