After exoneration: an investigation of stigma and wrongfully convicted persons.

• Author: Thompson, Adina M.
• Position: Revealing the Impact & Aftermath of Miscarriages of Justice

ABSTRACT (1)

To date, the Innocence Project has worked to exonerate over 280 individuals who were wrongfully convicted. (2) As the population of exonerees grows, there is a need to examine the social consequences of wrongful conviction. Previous research has demonstrated that individuals who are paroled from prison are discriminated against and stigmatized, and this research has suggested that exonerees may be stigmatized in a similar manner. (3) Using correspondence bias as a theoretical framework, we examined this possibility through two separate studies. In Study One, participants read a newspaper article about either an exoneree or a guilty individual. (4) In Study Two, participants read a newspaper article about either an exoneree, guilty, or average individual. (5) We found that the guilty individual was generally stigmatized more than the exonerated. However, the exonerated were rated at or near the midpoint of the scale on some measures of stigma in Study One, indicating they may experience some stigma. In Study Two, we found the exonerated individual was stigmatized relative to the average individual on most measures of personal characteristics. However, the exonerated individual was not stigmatized on other measures relative to the average individual. The implications of these results, future directions for research, and policy recommendations are discussed below.

1. AFTER EXONERATION: AN INVESTIGATION OF STIGMA AND WRONGFULLY CONVICTED PERSONS

   In 1989, Gary Dotson became the first person to be exonerated in the United States through the use of DNA evidence. (6) Dotson was incarcerated for more than a decade prior to his exoneration (7) and with his case, a new innocence movement was born. (8) In the years since Dotson's exoneration, DNA evidence has exonerated over 280 individuals of crimes they did not commit. (9) Seventeen of these exonerated individuals had been convicted of first-degree murder and were sentenced to death. (10) Others were exonerated of violent crimes such as rape and assault. (11) These exonerations may represent only a small proportion of all wrongful convictions, which some scholars have estimated to be in the tens of thousands. (12) Other scholars suggest that wrongful convictions occur in between one and fifteen percent of all cases. (13)

   To date, most research dealing with wrongful conviction has examined why these mistakes occur (14) and how to compensate those who have been wrongfully convicted. (15) Other research has investigated the psychological effects of wrongful conviction from the perspective of the exonerated, (16) but to date, only one study has examined the social consequences exonerees may experience as a result of their wrongful convictions by examining societal perceptions of the exonerated. (17) The present research expands the literature on the stigma of wrongful conviction by examining how people perceive exonerees after release. Using social psychological theory on attribution to inform our research, we consider the stigma levied upon exonerees as compared to that upon parolees, and introduce crime type as a possible moderator of stigma.

2. INITIAL EVIDENCE FOR EXONEREE STIGMATIZATION

   Though little research to date has examined exoneree stigma through an empirical lens, there has been considerably more work that explores exoneree stigma through an anecdotal framework. Some accounts suggest that people may be uncomfortable working alongside exonerees. (18) One exoneree reports that the women at his workplace told their supervisor they were uncomfortable working alongside him because he had been convicted, albeit exonerated, of rape. (19) Other anecdotal evidence suggests that community members are not willing to readily accept exonerees back into the communities from which they were originally arrested. (20) Another exoneree reported that upon returning to his hometown he was harassed and ridiculed, and once found the words "child killer" etched into the dirt on his truck. (21) Yet another exoneree indicated that attempts were made to burn his house down. (22)

   This evidence suggests that exonerees may have a difficult time reintegrating into society, and research investigating the psychological consequences of wrongful conviction further supports this notion. (23) Case studies of individual exonerees have revealed evidence of post-traumatic stress disorder and a host of reentry problems, including but not limited to lack of practical life skills, fear of public places, and inability to connect with family members. (24) Other research has indicated that wrongful conviction is related to an increase in cynicism and mistrust on the part of the exonerees. (25)

   Thus, these examples demonstrate both that exonerees experience some level of stigma upon release and that they are at a disadvantage psychologically. However, we know little about the degree of stigma they experience or about how they are perceived in society. We therefore turn to social psychological research on correspondence bias to provide a theoretical basis for understanding how exonerees may be perceived.

3. CORRESPONDENCE BIAS AS A THEORETICAL BASIS FOR EXONEREE STIGMA

   The most basic tenant of correspondence bias (also known as the fundamental attribution error) is that people tend to attribute others' behaviors to dispositional rather than situational factors. (26) Though there are some who disagree with the notion of correspondence bias, (27) the concept has been widely supported in the psychological literature. (28)

   In the case of exonerated individuals, observers may commit correspondence bias by attributing the initial conviction to the exoneree's perceived inherent criminality rather than to a flaw in the criminal justice system. If it occurs, this attribution will follow a three-step process. (29) First, the observer must make a causal judgment: to what action should a particular outcome be attributed? (30) This is the step in which the observer must determine what action caused the wrongful conviction. (31) Did the exoneree supply a false confession? Was he (32) involved peripherally in the crime but not primarily? Did he talk back to police when he was questioned? Did he resist arrest? Was he in the wrong place at the wrong time? In this phase, the observer would determine if the exoneree was initially suspected, tried, and convicted because of some perceived action he committed, or if he was the victim of a flawed legal system. (33)

   In the second step, the observer makes social inferences: what caused the action to occur? (34) Was the action the result of a characteristic of the exoneree, or the result of the environment or situation in which the exoneree was placed? During this phase, the observer would determine whether the cause of the wrongful conviction was due to a personal attribute (e.g., an inherent criminality), or whether it was caused by something situational (e.g., an intimidating interrogation, a misidentification, faulty forensic evidence, or snitch testimony). (35)

   It is during this second step that the critical error that may contribute to exoneree stigma is likely to occur. The observer may be more likely to conclude the exoneree's inherent criminality caused the wrongful conviction than to conclude the situation caused the wrongful conviction. This may be because prior research on correspondence bias shows people are more likely to attribute others' actions to their personal attributes rather than to situational factors. (36) Thus, the observer may neglect to correctly account for the situational factors over which the exoneree had no control, such as faulty forensic evidence or an incompetent attorney, and rather assume he caused his own wrongful conviction because he is a "bad person." Due to this conclusion, the observer may be more likely to stigmatize the exoneree than had the observer correctly weighed the situational influences.

   Once the observer attributes the behavior to personal or situational characteristics, the observer moves on to the third and final phase: predictions about future outcomes and behaviors. (37) If the wrongful conviction has been attributed to personal characteristics, such as innate criminality, then the observer may be likely to assume the outcome, conviction, will happen again because the observer may assume the individual will continue to commit crime. (38) Thus, because of correspondence bias and misjudgment in the second phase of attribution, the observer may be likely to expect future criminality from the exoneree. Therefore, the exoneree may be stigmatized.

   Indeed, research has suggested that innocence is not a protection against stigma after being associated with the criminal justice system. (39) In one classic study, researchers found that individuals who were accused but acquitted of assault had almost as much trouble finding unskilled employment as individuals who were convicted of assault. (40) The researchers submitted four job applications for unskilled hotel worker positions to several hotels in New York. (41) The applications were identical with the exception of the applicants' criminal histories; the applicants were either convicted of assault, tried and acquitted of assault, tried and acquitted with a letter from a judge certifying the acquittal, or had no criminal history. (42) Applicants were more likely to be considered for a job if they had no criminal history compared to all other groups. (43) However, applicants with a letter certifying their acquittal were more likely to be considered than those without a letter, and those who were acquitted were more likely to be considered than those who were convicted. (44) This study demonstrates that merely being suspected of a crime can be detrimental to one's employment prospects, despite evidence of innocence. (45) It is possible that employers in this study committed correspondence bias in that they attributed the fact that the applicant was accused of a...