Observing Aversive Bias in Court Cases Dealing with Defendants Suffering from a Mental Illness
Creators: name: Guzman, Yanelli
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2022
Subjects: aversive bias, mental illness, court, psychology

description: The study experimentally investigated whether citizens took mental illness, as well as the severity of the mental illness, into consideration when participating in a mock court case. Eighty participants (N=80) were randomly assigned one of three mock-court cases to determine a verdict and sentence for the corresponding defendant; one defendant suffered from schizophrenia, another from depression, and the third had no mental illness. Approximately seventy-six percent of mock-jurors who participated in the schizophrenia case study (N=30) gave the verdict of “Not Guilty due to Reason of Insanity” compared to eight percent of mock-jurors who participated in the depression case study (N=25) and four percent of mock-jurors who participated in the no mental illness case study. Using a Chi-Square Test of Independence, the study compared the leniency of each sentencing for each of the three mock-court cases. We can conclude that, on average, schizophrenic defendants received more lenient sentencing compared to both the defendant with depression and the defendant with no mental illness. Overall, defendants with a mental illness will receive a lesser sentence and will receive more leniency from jury members. At the same time, the severity of a defendants’ mental illness did substantially impact the jurors’ perceptions. Since the Insanity Defense has arisen in court cases, mental illnesses of defendants have been in question more in the United States. In addition, there have been many cases where defendants have pleaded “Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity”. For example, Andrea Yates, a woman who was found guilty in her first trial, but not guilty due to insanity in her second trial as she suffered from postpartum mental illness. Though this is only one example, research on jury sentencing and verdicts given to defendants with a mental illness has been extensively observed and examined. In addition, research has also shown that the mental illness diagnosis has mediated verdict and sentencing. The more severe the diagnosis, the lesser the sentence. Little research, nonetheless, has compared the severity of different diagnoses in the same study and how severity influences juror decisions. The purpose of this study was to examine how the mental illness diagnosis (schizophrenia, depression, or no mental illness) of the defendant influence juror decisions. Based on prior research, we expected defendants diagnosed with schizophrenia to be given a lesser sentence with a “Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity” verdict more often compared to defendants with depression or no mental illness. Method: Eighty potential jurors acted as mock jurors and were randomly assigned to one of three conditions. Mock jurors read a mock court case that varied the diagnosis of the defendant. Mock jurors were asked to give a verdict followed by a recommended sentence and then answer culpability questions. Results: A Chi-Square Test of Independence revealed significant relationships between mental illness diagnosis and verdict as well as mental illness diagnosis and sentencing. Diagnosis*Verdict: X2 (4, N = 80) = 44.42, p &lt; 0.001. Diagnosis*Sentence: X2 (8, N = 79) = 61.8, p &lt; 0.001. Defendants with a more severe diagnosis, schizophrenia, received a lesser verdict and sentencing.