Effects of a defendant's previous psychiatric hospitalization on the judgments of simulated jurors

Simulated jurors were asked to render judgements in a case involving either a violent or a nonviolent armed robbery. The defendent either did or did not have a stated history or previous psychiatric hospitalization. The former mental patient received fewer guilty verdicts than did the nonhospitalized defendant in the nonviolent robbery condition, while no difference existed in the violent robbery condition. It was predicted that, relative to the nonhospitalized defendant, subjects would be more punitive when the former mental patient was judged guilty of the violent crime than when he was judged guilty of the nonviolent robbery. This prediction was confirmed only for male subjects. The data suggest that while males responded in terms of conventional stereotypes about the mentally ill, females did not. Results are discussed in terms of attribution of responsibility and fear reactions toward the mentally ill.