The Impact of Stigma and Diagnostic Term on Juror Decision-Making in a Mock Criminal Trial

Vollständiger Abstract

Worum geht es in dieser Arbeit?

Public stigma towards mental health conditions has been subject to considerable research. Whilst there is evidence to suggest that different psychiatric diagnoses may be associated with varying levels of public stigma, research exploring the impact of such differences is limited. In the present study, we considered whether differences in diagnosis and baseline individual stigma towards mental health conditions influenced juror decision-making in a mock criminal trial. We used an online, between-groups experimental design, with N = 150 participants being manipulated between three experimental conditions ('Schizophrenia’, ‘Borderline Personality Disorder’, and ‘Complex Mental Health Condition’), and measured stigma using a validated measure. A video trial vignette depicting a case of alleged criminal damage was presented where the only manipulation was the diagnostic term. Both logistic and linear hierarchical regressions were used to consider the effect of diagnosis and stigma on guilt, which was rated both as a binary and continuous measure. The results suggest that juror stigma, but not exposure to different diagnostic terms, was a significant factor in the individual verdicts that jurors reached, associated with a medium/large standardised effect in the linear regression (β=0.54, p < .001). Heterogeneity between individual jurors in guilt ratings was high. Moreover, male jurors were also more likely to give a guilty verdict than female jurors, contrary to previous research. The study's strengths and limitations are discussed, along with implications for legal professionals and clinicians working within the criminal courts of England and Wales.