Mock Juror Perceptions of Credibility and Culpability in an Autistic Defendant.
Katie Maras, Imogen Marshall, Chloe Sands
PMID 30382444WHAT IT FOUND
Mock jurors who were told the defendant had ASD and how it affected him rated him more honest and less blameworthy.
They were more likely to choose not guilty and, when choosing guilty, more lenient in sentencing attitudes. Cognitive functioning ratings did not differ.
Key findings
01When mock jurors were told the defendant had ASD and how it affected him, they rated him as more honest and more likeable, while cognitive functioning ratings did not differ, compared with jurors given no diagnosis information.
02The label plus information condition produced lower blameworthiness ratings and more not guilty verdicts than the no label condition.
03Among participants who judged the defendant guilty, those given the ASD label plus information reported more lenient sentencing attitudes.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
Participants were online mock jurors reading a written vignette, not real jurors hearing live testimony or deciding a real case. The sample was recruited through an opportunity sample and was mostly female, with many participants employed or studying and one-fifth having studied psychology or psychiatry to degree level or higher. The study did not include normal jury instructions about evidence and credibility, which may have contributed to participants expressing uncertainty. The label condition combined a diagnosis with explanatory information, so the effect of the label alone cannot be separated from the effect of the added description. The findings concern one fictional assault case and mock perceptions, not clinical outcomes, therapy effects, or real legal decisions.
Declared interests
Funding was provided by the Economic and Social Research Council. The supplied text does not report author conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read this as evidence that telling a court someone is autistic will get a not guilty verdict or reduce sentencing. The study used mock jurors and a written vignette, not real trials, and the label condition also included explanatory information about ASD behaviours.