Morally excused but socially excluded : denying agency through the defense of mental impairment
- Authors: De Vel-Palumbo, Melissa , Ferguson, Rose , Schein, Chelsea , Chang, Melissa , Bastian, Brock
- Date: 2022
- Type: Text , Journal article
- Relation: PLoS ONE Vol. 17, no. 7 July (2022), p.
- Full Text:
- Reviewed:
- Description: Defendants can deny they have agency, and thus responsibility, for a crime by using a defense of mental impairment. We argue that although this strategy may help defendants evade blame, it may carry longer-term social costs, as lay people's perceptions of a person's agency might determine some of the moral rights they grant them. Three randomized between-group experiments (N = 1601) used online vignettes to examine lay perceptions of a hypothetical defendant using a defense of mental impairment (versus a guilty plea). We find that using a defense of mental impairment significantly reduces responsibility, blame, and punitiveness relative to a guilty plea, and these judgments are mediated by perceptions of reduced moral agency. However, after serving their respective sentences, those using the defense are sometimes conferred fewer rights, as reduced agency corresponds to an increase in perceived dangerousness. Our findings were found to be robust across different types of mental impairment, offences/sentences, and using both manipulated and measured agency. The findings have implications for defendants claiming reduced agency through legal defenses, as well as for the broader study of moral rights and mind perception. © 2022 de Vel-Palumbo et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Morally excused but socially excluded: Denying agency through the defense of mental impairment
- Authors: de Vel-Palumbo, Melissa , Schein, Chelsea , Ferguson, Rose , Chang, Melissa , Bastian, Brock
- Date: 2021
- Type: Text , Journal article
- Relation: PloS one Vol. 16, no. 6 (2021), p. e0252586-e0252586
- Full Text:
- Reviewed:
- Description: Defendants can deny they have agency, and thus responsibility, for a crime by using a defense of mental impairment. We argue that although this strategy may help defendants evade blame, it may carry longer-term social costs, as lay people's perceptions of a person's agency might determine some of the moral rights they grant them. In this registered report protocol, we seek to expand upon preliminary findings from two pilot studies to examine how and why those using the defense of mental impairment are seen as less deserving of certain rights. The proposed study uses a hypothetical vignette design, varying the type of mental impairment, type of crime, and type of sentence. Our design for the registered study improves on various aspects of our pilot studies and aims to rigorously test the reliability and credibility of our model. The findings have implications for defendants claiming reduced agency through legal defenses, as well as for the broader study of moral rights and mind perception.