Effects of a defendant's previous psychiatric hospitalization on the judgments of simulated jurors

Dados Bibliográficos

ID11054822
AutoresRonald E Smith (0000-0001-6356-7213, Department of Psychology, NI-25 University of Washington 98195 Seattle Washington, autor correspondente), Stanley Sue (0000-0002-0485-9686, University of California, Los Angeles), Eligio R Padilla (University of California, Los Angeles)
Ano1976
Volume4
Fascículo2
Páginas133-144
Data de publicação1976-06-01
Peer ReviewedSim
Open AccessSim
TipoARTICLE
PeriódicoAmerican Journal of Community Psychology (JOURNAL)
Identificadores do periódicoISSN: 0091-0562 • E-ISSN: 1573-2770
EditoraWiley (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1007/bf00881935
PMID941874
OpenAlexW2087814102
IdiomaEN
Citações recebidas1
Referências citadas8

Simulated jurors were asked to render judgements in a case involving either a violent or a nonviolent armed robbery. The defendent either did or did not have a stated history or previous psychiatric hospitalization. The former mental patient received fewer guilty verdicts than did the nonhospitalized defendant in the nonviolent robbery condition, while no difference existed in the violent robbery condition. It was predicted that, relative to the nonhospitalized defendant, subjects would be more punitive when the former mental patient was judged guilty of the violent crime than when he was judged guilty of the nonviolent robbery. This prediction was confirmed only for male subjects. The data suggest that while males responded in terms of conventional stereotypes about the mentally ill, females did not. Results are discussed in terms of attribution of responsibility and fear reactions toward the mentally ill

Citation · Library science · Psychiatry · Sociology · Stigma (botany) · Computer Science · Jury Decision Making Processes · Legal Education and Practice Innovations · Psychology · Social and Intergroup Psychology