Effects of confession evidence and juveniles’ intellectual disability on jurors’ judgments

What is it about?

Some teenagers may not fully understand their legal rights in interrogations or the implications of confessing to a crime they did not commit. If jurors rely too much on coerced confessions, especially from teens with intellectual disabilities, this could lead to unfair verdicts. This study looked at how jury-eligible people think about teenage defendants in court, particularly when the teen is intellectually disabled or has confessed to a crime. Jurors were less likely to believe a confession if they thought it was forced than if they thought it was voluntary. They also felt more sympathy and less anger toward a teen who was pressured to confess. This made them more likely to make decisions that favored the teen. Surprisingly, whether the teen had a disability did not change how jurors judged guilt. But when jurors thought the teen was guilty, they were less likely to recommend that disabled vs. Nondisabled teen be tried in adult court. They saw disabled teens as less in control of their behavior and less dangerous. This research shows the need to protect teens, especially those with disabilities, during police questioning and trials.

Featured Image

Photo by The Cleveland Museum of Art on Unsplash

Photo by The Cleveland Museum of Art on Unsplash

Why is it important?

The study shows that mock jurors are less persuaded by confessions they see as coerced vs. voluntary, and view defendants who were coerced to confess as more suggestible and deserving of sympathy. Although a teen defendant’s intellectual disability alone did not change jurors’ guilt judgments, it influenced their decisions about punishment and court placement when guilt was assumed. These findings support reforms to protect vulnerable juveniles from the risks of false confessions and unfair treatment in the legal system.