English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Previous research has investigated the effects of providing general information about autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in legal contexts; however, the impact of idiosyncratic information about a defendant’s ASD on juror decision-making has not been examined. Therefore, the current study attempted to determine if there were differences in juror decision-making when (1) a defendant was explicitly diagnosed with ASD and (2) the specific type of information provided about the defendant’s ASD was varied in terms of severity and accompanying impairments. Participants ( N  = 422) read a case vignette and subsequently provided a verdict decision as well as opinions about the defendant’s responsibility for the crime and considerations of the defendant’s mental health in sentencing as proxy measures of juror leniency. Findings suggest that the explicit presence of an ASD diagnosis acts as a mitigating factor and results in the provision of fewer guilty verdicts. Further, jurors take the severity of ASD into account more than the type of impairment accompanying the disorder such that an increase in severity resulted in fewer guilty verdicts. Additionally, jurors appear to consider social impairments on par with intellectual impairments for adult defendants who present with ASD. Implications and future directions are discussed.

Autism spectrum disorder in adult defendants: the impact of information type on juror decision-making