The impact of developmental language disorder in a defendant's description on mock jurors' perceptions and judgements.
Hannah Madaleine Hobson, Jemma Woodley, Samantha Gamblen and 4 others
PMID 36087284WHAT IT FOUND
Telling mock jurors a defendant had developmental language disorder did not change guilty verdicts or sentence length.
It did make jurors view him as more honest, likeable and less blameworthy, but also as having worse cognitive ability.
Key findings
01There was no significant difference in guilty verdicts between jurors who were told the defendant had a DLD diagnosis and those who were not.
02Jurors who received the DLD diagnosis rated the defendant as more likeable, more honest and less blameworthy than those who did not receive the diagnosis.
03The DLD information condition did not increase how often jurors mentioned the defendant's communication difficulties when justifying their ratings, except when judging his cognitive ability.
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
The study used a mock jury scenario with a written vignette, so it is unclear how real jurors would respond over a longer trial with access to experts. The crime chosen was shoplifting, a non-violent offence. The authors note that almost all participants, regardless of group, thought prison was too harsh, creating a floor effect that may have masked any difference in sentencing. Participants were recruited from social media, and the sample was not representative of the general population. The vignette described behaviour that was consistent with DLD, which may have led participants in the no-information group to infer a disorder themselves, diluting the difference between the groups. The authors acknowledge that some participants guessed the purpose of the study, particularly those in the DLD information group, which could have influenced their ratings.
Declared interests
The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not assume that providing a DLD diagnosis to a jury will change the verdict or the sentence. In this study, the diagnosis did not affect guilty verdicts or sentence length. It only changed how jurors rated the defendant's character and blameworthiness, and even then, they did not reliably link his behaviour to his communication difficulties.