False Admissions of Guilt Associated with Wrongful Convictions Undermine People’s Perceptions of Exonerees

The wrongly convicted face numerous post-exoneration challenges—including financial difficulties and an inability to find immediate housing, employment, or means to expunge their criminal records—that stem from the public’s stigmatization. Like false confessions, false pleas can prompt a series of negative judgments that undermine the public’s willingness to support reintegration aid for exonerees. In this study, 290 workers from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk were randomly assigned one of four newspaper articles about Daniel Cooper—a man wrongly convicted of murder, but eventually exonerated by DNA evidence. The articles described how the exoneree falsely confessed, falsely pleaded guilty, both, or neither. Participants thereafter answered questions concerning their perceptions of Cooper’s intelligence; how likely it was that he suffered from mental health issues; the extent to which he was responsible for his conviction; how likely it was that he was actually guilty; and their willingness to support reintegration efforts. The participants perceived Cooper and other exonerees who falsely admitted guilt as less intelligent and more likely to suffer from mental health issues. The participants also felt such exonerees were more responsible for their wrongful conviction and not entirely innocent. Consequently, participants felt these exonerees were less deserving of reintegration aid than those who did not falsely admit guilt. The study emphasizes the need to institute policy reforms that seek to reintegrate all exonerees without exception.

“Like false confessions, wrongful convictions associated with false guilty pleas precipitated a series of negative judgments and perceptions that ultimately resulted in people believing the exoneree was less deserving of reintegration support compared to exonerees who did not falsely admit wrongdoing. . . . Thus, although false confessions and false guilty pleas are objectively different . . . our findings indicate that individuals who offer either type of false admission are perceived similarly.” p. 240