Jurors' perceptions of juvenile defendants: the influence of intellectual disability, abuse history, and confession evidence

Abstract

Understanding jurors' perceptions of juvenile defendants has become increasingly important as more and more juvenile cases are being tried in adult criminal court rather than family or juvenile court. Intellectual disability and child maltreatment are overrepresented among juvenile delinquents, and juveniles (particularly disabled juveniles) are at heightened risk for falsely confessing to crimes. In two mock trial experiments, we examined the effects of disability, abuse history, and confession evidence on jurors' perceptions of a juvenile defendant across several different crime scenarios. Abused juveniles were treated more leniently than nonabused juveniles only when the juvenile's crime was motivated by self-defense against the abuser. Jurors used disability as a mitigating factor, making more lenient judgments for a disabled than a nondisabled juvenile. Jurors also completely discounted a coerced confession for a disabled juvenile, but not for a nondisabled juvenile. In fact, compared with when it was portrayed as voluntary, jurors generally discounted a juvenile's coerced confession. Implications for public policy and directions for future research are discussed.

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.…”

“…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." These results suggest that participants were cued to the notion that individuals with intellectual disabilities differ in terms of criminal responsibility relative to their nondisabled counterparts.…”

Effects of jurors’ gender and attitudes toward intellectual disability on judgments in cases involving disabled juvenile defendants

“…In addition, the incorporation of video footage from an actual trial, as recommended by Bornstein (1999), increased the realism of this study relative to other mock trial research using only written materials (e.g. Najdowski et al, 2009) by allowing jurors to have an image of the defendant to think about while making their case judgments. An Assistant State's Attorney reviewed our materials to ensure they were realistic.…”

“…have IQs below 70; American Psychiatric Association, 2013) (see Kazdin, 2000, for review). 1 Najdowski, Bottoms, and Vargas (2009) showed that, overall, mock jurors perceived a juvenile as less guilty, less deviant, and less responsible for her crime when she was described as intellectually disabled rather than nondisabled. Even so, the mitigating effect of disability was moderated by other extralegal factors, including the type of crime the juvenile committed and whether the juvenile confessed.…”

Cognition and the Child Witness: Understanding the Impact of Cognitive Development in Forensic Contexts

“…ID is overrepresented among juvenile delinquents (Najdowski, Bottoms, & Vargas, 2009), as is mental illness (Redlich, 2007), both of which increase adolescent vulnerability to interrogative pressure, which is already heightened among youths (Redlich, 2007;Richardson, Gudjonsson, & Kelly, 1995). Indeed, research demonstrates that children and adolescents (particularly ID and mentally ill juveniles) are at greater risk for falsely confessing transgressions that they did not commit (Najdowski et al, 2009;Redlich, 2007). Given these findings, it is vital that intellectual ability and mental health be taken into account when considering child and adolescent witness and defendant statements.…”