| Objective: This study explored juror stigma towards mentally ill defendants, and examined the impact of a new challenge for cause procedure in decision-making. Method: Participants' attitudes towards mental illness (MI) were assessed. Participants were randomly assigned to a challenge for cause procedure and were provided with a trial transcript, in which the MI of the defendant was manipulated. Participants made a judgement about the defendant's guilt, and sentencing if applicable. Finally, a post-test of attitudes towards MI was completed. Results: Limited relationships were found between the variables. Neither MI nor challenge type had a significant effect on juror decisions. There were no differences between pre and post attitude scores regardless of challenge type. Discussion: Findings suggest that questions about court proceedings in cases involving a defendant with a MI may need to be framed differently. Attitudes towards mentally ill offenders may need to be explored using more ecologically valid methods. |
