Intellectual Disability Affects Case Judgment Differently Depending on Juvenile Race

Abstract

This research investigated how juvenile race and ctual disability affect case judgment involving recanted confession. We recruited 151 participants to serve as mock jurors using a 2 (juvenile race: Black, White) × 2 (intellectual disability: disabled, nondisabled) between-subjects design. We found that participants rendered more guilty verdicts, had higher confidence in the defendants’ guilt, and estimated a higher probability of crime commission when the juvenile defendants were White instead of Black. Consistent with the “bend-over-backwards” effect and the expectancy-violation theory, participants judged the nondisabled White juvenile defendants harshly but the nondisabled Black juvenile defendants leniently. In addition, intellectual disability was a mitigating factor, but mostly for White juvenile defendants. Black juvenile defendants with intellectual disability were often judged more harshly than Black juvenile defendants without intellectual disability. Finally, juvenile race and intellectual disability interacted to affect the evaluation of confession evidence and case outcome. Overall, the current research extended our understanding of public perception of Black and White juvenile defendants with intellectual disability.