<%BANNER%>

Exoneree Stigma

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0042692/00001

Material Information

Title: Exoneree Stigma An Investigation of Attitudes Toward Guilty and Wrongfully Convicted Persons
Physical Description: 1 online resource (88 p.)
Language: english
Creator: THOMPSON,ADINA M
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2011

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: ASSAULT -- BIAS -- CONVICTION -- CORRESPONDENCE -- EXONERATED -- EXONERATION -- EXONEREE -- INNOCENCE -- INNOCENT -- MURDER -- PAROLE -- PAROLEE -- REENTRY -- ROBBERY -- STIGMA -- WRONGFUL
Sociology and Criminology & Law -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Criminology, Law, and Society thesis, M.A.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: The Innocence Project has exonerated 266 individuals to date who were wrongly convicted of crimes they did not commit. As exonerations increase, there is a need to examine the social effects of wrongful conviction. Previous research has demonstrated that individuals who are paroled from prison are discriminated against and stigmatized in our society. Using correspondence bias as a theoretical framework, this study hypothesized that exonerees would be similarly stigmatized. Using a 2 (status: exonerated, convicted) X 4 (crime: robbery, assault, sexual battery, murder) between subjects factorial design, this study investigated whether exonerees were stigmatized at the same level as guilty persons, and whether that stigma was moderated by the type of crime committed. Results indicated that the guilty/paroled were always stigmatized more than the exonerated. However, the exonerated were rated above or near the midpoint of the scale on some measures of stigma, indicating that they still experience some stigma. Additionally, an effect of the interaction between status and crime type was observed on measures of desired closeness, showing that the guilty who committed more severe crimes were thought of less favorably than the guilty who committed less severe crimes. However, no such relationship existed for exonerees.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by ADINA M THOMPSON.
Thesis: Thesis (M.A.)--University of Florida, 2011.
Local: Adviser: Levett, Lora M.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2013-04-30

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2011
System ID: UFE0042692:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0042692/00001

Material Information

Title: Exoneree Stigma An Investigation of Attitudes Toward Guilty and Wrongfully Convicted Persons
Physical Description: 1 online resource (88 p.)
Language: english
Creator: THOMPSON,ADINA M
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2011

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: ASSAULT -- BIAS -- CONVICTION -- CORRESPONDENCE -- EXONERATED -- EXONERATION -- EXONEREE -- INNOCENCE -- INNOCENT -- MURDER -- PAROLE -- PAROLEE -- REENTRY -- ROBBERY -- STIGMA -- WRONGFUL
Sociology and Criminology & Law -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Criminology, Law, and Society thesis, M.A.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: The Innocence Project has exonerated 266 individuals to date who were wrongly convicted of crimes they did not commit. As exonerations increase, there is a need to examine the social effects of wrongful conviction. Previous research has demonstrated that individuals who are paroled from prison are discriminated against and stigmatized in our society. Using correspondence bias as a theoretical framework, this study hypothesized that exonerees would be similarly stigmatized. Using a 2 (status: exonerated, convicted) X 4 (crime: robbery, assault, sexual battery, murder) between subjects factorial design, this study investigated whether exonerees were stigmatized at the same level as guilty persons, and whether that stigma was moderated by the type of crime committed. Results indicated that the guilty/paroled were always stigmatized more than the exonerated. However, the exonerated were rated above or near the midpoint of the scale on some measures of stigma, indicating that they still experience some stigma. Additionally, an effect of the interaction between status and crime type was observed on measures of desired closeness, showing that the guilty who committed more severe crimes were thought of less favorably than the guilty who committed less severe crimes. However, no such relationship existed for exonerees.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by ADINA M THOMPSON.
Thesis: Thesis (M.A.)--University of Florida, 2011.
Local: Adviser: Levett, Lora M.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2013-04-30

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2011
System ID: UFE0042692:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 9

Introduction 1

PAGE 10

2

PAGE 11

3

PAGE 13

Correspondence Bias

PAGE 22

Parolees and Stigmatization

PAGE 23

Employment

PAGE 25

acquitted

PAGE 27

Housing

PAGE 31

4 Exonerees actual

PAGE 36

Current Research

PAGE 39

Participants Design Stimulus Defendant Status

PAGE 40

Type of C rime Measures Section O ne: G uilt, C ulpability, and A ttribu tion M easures

PAGE 41

Section T wo: C ompetenc y M easures1 Section T hree: W armth M easures2

PAGE 42

Section F our: C loseness M easures

PAGE 43

Section F ive: G overnment A ssistance M easures

PAGE 44

Section S ix: D emographic Q uestions 3

PAGE 45

Section S even: M anipulation C heck Q uestions

PAGE 46

4 Procedure

PAGE 48

Analysis 1 Descriptive S tatistics

PAGE 49

Culpability, Criminality, and Attribution F p F p F p

PAGE 50

Competenc y and Warmth p F p F p F p F p F p p p

PAGE 51

Closeness F p F p F p F p F p F p F p ps

PAGE 52

Government Assistance F p

PAGE 53

p s F p ps

PAGE 54

F df p F df p

PAGE 55

F d f p F df p F df p

PAGE 56

F df p

PAGE 64

more Policy Implications Limitations

PAGE 65

Sampling Prior Biases

PAGE 66

Lack of C ontrol C ondition less Ecological Validity

PAGE 67

Directions for Future Research

PAGE 68

CONCLUSION

PAGE 70

State Compensation (adapted from www.innocenceproject.org)

PAGE 71

STARKE, FL An inmate was released at 09:30 Monday from Union Correctional Institution [after he served prison time for a crime he did not commit.] Frank L. Jeffries, 38, walked free after [serving his sentence for (crime)] OR [his conviction for (crime) was overturned.] On a crisp January night several years ago, a Citrus county woman [insert crime summary] Robbery crime summary: was robbed after a man forcibly entered her apartment while she was sleeping. The victim awoke while the perpetrator was rifling through her nightstand drawers. She attempted to slap the intruder, scratching his arm in the process. A DVD player, $84 in cash, and three credit cards were stolen from the apartment. OR Assault crime summary: was assaulted after a man forcibly entered her apartment while she was sleeping. The victim awoke while the perpetrator was rifling through her nightstand drawers. She attempted to slap the i ntruder, scratching his arm in the process. He hit her with a lamp and repeatedly smashed her head against the nightstand, leaving her bleeding profusely from her scalp. OR Sexual battery crime summary: was sexually battered after a man forcibly entered he r apartment while she was sleeping. The victim awoke while the perpetrator was rifling through her nightstand drawers. She attempted to slap the intruder, scratching his arm in the process. She was raped and anally penetrated with a hairbrush the perpetrat or retrieved from her nightstand. OR Murder crime summary: was murdered after a man forcibly entered her apartment while she was sleeping. The victim awoke while the perpetrator was rifling through her nightstand drawers. She attempted to slap the intruder scratching his arm in the process. She was stabbed seven times with a hunting knife and left in her bed, the covers pulled up over her face. The apartment doorman heard screaming and called 911. While on the phone, he saw a man rush out the front door and jump in a blue four-door van. Three hours later, Frank L. Jeffries, 38, was arrested by Citrus County sheriffs office deputies for the robbery of 27year -old Theresa Marvin. [Last May, DNA evidence surfaced that proved Jeffries could not have been the perpetrator.] [A swab of the victims fingernails yielded skin cells from a male with O-positive blood type. Jeffries blood type is also Opositive. However, a DNA test was never conducted during the original trial.] An eyewitness identification by the victims doorman, combined with the blood typing, were the key pieces of evidence that lead to Jeffries conviction, said Hank Loomis, a Citrus County sheriffs deputy. [The real perpetrator has not yet been apprehended.]

PAGE 72

Par t I Instructions: Please circle only one answer for the question below. 1. Is Frank L. Jeffries guilty or not guilty of the crime he was in prison for? (circle one answer): Guilty (1) Not Guilty (2) Instructions: Please indicate how much you agree or d isagree with the following statements. Please circle only one answer for each question. If you do not know or would rather not answer, leave the question blank and continue on to the next question. Strongly disagree 1 Disagree 2 Slightly disagree 3 Ne ither agree nor disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agre e 6 Strongly agree 7 2. Frank L. Jeffries is not guilty of the crime he went to prison for: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. Frank L. Jeffries did not deserve to be in prison: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4. Frank L. Jeffries wil l not commit a crime in the future: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. Frank L. Jeffries will be arrested in the future: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6. Frank L. Jeffries will return to prison: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7. Frank L. Jeffries is no more dangerous than the average person: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. I am suspicious of Frank L. Jeffries: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9. Frank L. Jeffries deserves to have the same rights and privileges that I have: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10. It is Frank L. Jeffries fault that he went to prison: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

PAGE 73

11. Frank L. Jeffr ies was convicted because he has criminal tendencies: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12. Frank L. Jeffries is a victim of a flawed criminal justice system: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13. Frank L. Jeffries caused his own conviction: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 14. Frank L. Jeffriess conviction was a result of the circumstances he was in at the time of the initial investigation: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Part II Instructions: Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the following statements. Please circle only one answer for each question. If you do not know or would rather not answer, leave the question blank and continue on to the next question. Strongly disagree 1 Disagree 2 Slightly disagree 3 Neither agree nor disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree 7 15 Frank L. Jeffries is incompetent: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 16 Frank L. Jeffries is competitive: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 17 Frank L. Jeffries is dependent: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 18 Frank L. Jeffries is confident: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 19 Frank L. Jeffries in not intelligent: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Part III Instructions: Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the following statements. Please circle only one answer for each question. If you do not know or would rather not answer, leave the question blank and continue on to the next question.

PAGE 74

Strongly disagree 1 Disagree 2 Slightly disagree 3 Neither agree nor disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree 7 20 Frank L. Jeffries is intolerant: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 21 Frank L. Jeffries is warm: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 22 Frank L. Jeffries is good natured: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 23 Frank L. Jeffries is dishonest: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Part IV Instructions: Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the following statements. Please circle only one answer for each question. If you do not know or would rather not answer, leave the question blank and continue on to the next question. Strongly disagree 1 Disagree 2 Slightly disagree 3 Neither agree nor disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree 7 24. I would be willing to be friends with Frank L. Jeffries 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 25. I would be willing to invite Frank L. Jeffries over to my house for dinner: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 26. I would not be willing to spend time alone with Frank L. Jeffries: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 27. I would be willing to share a cab with Frank L. Jeffries: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 28. I would be willing to let my sister or daughter go on a date with Frank L. Jeffries: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

PAGE 75

29. I would be willing to let my kids play with Frank L. Jeffries kids 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 30. I would not be willing to let F rank L. Jeffries babysit my little brother: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 31. I would not be willing to let Frank L. Jeffries be my childs schoolteacher: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 32. I would be willing to be roommates with Frank L. Jeffries: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 33. I would be willing to live next door to Frank L. Jeffries: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 34. I would not be willing to live in the same apartment complex as Frank L. Jeffries: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 35. I would not be willing to live in the same neighborhood as Frank L. Jeffries: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 36 I would be willing to work in the same office as Frank L. Jeffries: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 37. I would not be willing to share a cubicle with Frank L. Jeffries: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 38. I would be willing to collaborate on a project with Frank L. Jeffries: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 39. I would not be willing to let Frank L. Jeffries be my boss: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

PAGE 76

Part V Instructions: Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the following statements. P lease circle only one answer for each question. If you do not know or would rather not answer, leave the question blank and continue on to the next question. Strongly disagree 1 Disagree 2 Slightly disagree 3 Neither agree nor disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree 7 44. The government should not help Frank L. Jeffries find a job: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 45. The government should help Frank L. Jeffries get his criminal record expunged: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 46. Frank L. Jeffries should not get governm ent -subsidized mental health treatment: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 47. The government should help Frank L. Jeffries find a place to live: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 48. Frank L. Jeffries should get governmentsponsored family counseling: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 40. I would not be willing to rent an apartment to Frank L. Jeffries: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 41. I would not be willing to hire Frank L. Jeffries for a job: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 42. I would be willing to lend money to Frank L. Jeffries: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 43. I would be willing to be business partners with Frank L. Jeffries: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

PAGE 77

49. Frank L. Jeffries should not receive legal assistance from the government 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 50. Frank L. Jeffries should receive monetary compensation for the years he spent in prison: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 51. Frank L. Jeffries deserves restitution for the years he spend behind bars: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 52. The government does not owe Frank L. Jeffries anything for the years he spend in prison: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 53. Frank L. Jeffries should not get money to start his life outside of prison: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Instructions: Please circle only one answer for the question below 54. How much money should Frank L. Jeffries receive from the government for each year he spent in prison? No money $ 4 999 or less per year $5,000 $15,000 per year $15,000 $30,000 per year $30,000 $60,000 per year $60,000 $100,000 per year More than $100,000 per year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Part VI Instructions: Please answer the following demographic questions. Please circle only one answer for each question. If you do not know or would rather not answer, leave the question blank and continue on to the next question. 55. How old are you? (Write your age in years) _____________ (enter age) 56. What is your gender? (please circle one answer): Fema le (1) Male (0) 57. What racial group do you identify with? (Please circle one answer) A. White/ Caucasian (1) B. Black/African America (2) C. Asian/Pacific Islander (3) D. Native American/American Indian (4) E. Mixed race (5) F. Other (please in dicate)_____________________ (6)

PAGE 78

58. Do you consider yourself Hispanic or Latino/L atina? (Please cir cle one answer) Yes (1) No (0) 59. What is your current marital status? (Please circle one answer) A. Married (1) B. Domestic partnership (2) C. Divorced (3) D. Widowed (4) E. Single and never married (5) 60. What is your class standing? (Please circle one answer) A. Freshman/First Year (1) B. Sophomore/Second Year (2) C. Junior/ Third Year (3) D. Senior/Fourth Year (4) E. Undergraduate more than 4 years (5) F. Graduate student (6) 61. What is your major? (Please write on the line below) _______________________________________________________ 62. Have you ever been the victim of a crime? (Please circle yes or no. If NO, skip to question 65 ) Yes (1) No (0) 63. Was the perpetrator of the crime against you apprehended? (Please circle) A. Yes (1) B. No (0) C. I dont know (99) 64. Was the perpetrator of the crime against you tried in a court of law? (Please circle) A. Yes (1) B. No (0) C. I dont know (99) 65. Have you ever committed a felony (a crime punishable by a year or more in prison)? (Please circle yes or no) Yes (1) No (0) 66. Have you ever committed a misdemeanor (a crime punishable by less than a year in jail) ? (Please circle yes or no) Yes (1) No (0) 67. Have you ever been arrested for a crime? (Please circle one answer ) A. Yes, a felony (1) B. Yes, a misdemeanor (2) C. Yes, both a felony and a misdemeanor (3) C. No (0)

PAGE 79

68. Have you ever been convicted of a crime? (Please circle one answer ) A. Yes, a felony (1) B. Yes, a misdemeanor (2) C. Yes, both a felony and a misdemeanor (3) C. No (0) 69. Have you even been incarcerated in a prison, jail, or other correctional institution? (Please circle yes or no) Yes (1) No (0) Part VII Instructions: Please answer the following questions on a scale of 1 -10. Circle only one answer for each question. If you do not know or would rather not a nswer, leave the question blank and continue on to the next question. 70. In your opinion, on a scale of 1-10, how serious a crime is robbery? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (Not at all serious) (The most serious) 71. In your opinion, on a scale of 1-10, how serious a crime is assault? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (Not at all serious) (The most serious) 72. In your opinion, on a scale of 110, how serious a crime is sexual battery (rape)? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (Not at all serious) (The most serious) 73. In your opinion, on a scale of 1-10, how serious a crime is murder? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (Not at all serious) (The most serious) 74. In your opinion, on a scale of 1-10 how conclusive is DNA evidence that is being used to match a crime to a perpetrat or? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ( Not at all conclusive) (The most conclusive) Instructions: Please answer the following questions by circling either 1 for true or 0 for false. Circle only one answer for each question. If you do not know or would rather not answer, leave the question blank and continue on to the next question. True (1) False (0) 75. According to the article, Frank L. Jeffries was originally convicted of robbery: 1 0 76. According to the article, Frank L. Jeffries was originally convicted of assault: 1 0

PAGE 80

77. According to the article, Frank L. Jeffries was originally convicted of sexual battery: 1 0 78. According to the article, Frank L. Jeffries was originally convicted of murder: 1 0 79. According to the article, Fr ank L. Jeffries was released from prison because he served his entire sentence: 1 0 80. According to the article, Frank L. Jeffries was release from prison because new evidence proved his innocence: 1 0 81. According to the article, DNA evidence confirme d Frank L. Jeffries guilt: 1 0 82. According to the article, DNA evidence proved Frank L. Jeffries innocence: 1 0 This is the end of the survey. Please raise your hand to indicate to the experimenter that you are done.

PAGE 81

P LEASE READ THIS CONS ENT DOCUMENT CAREFULLY BEFORE YOU DECIDE TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS STUDY.Protocol Title: An investigation of attitudes toward persons released from prison. Purpose of the research study: The purpose of this study is to examine public attitudes toward persons released from prison. What you will be asked to do in the study: Should you agree to participate, you will be asked to read a news article about an individual who was recently released from prison. You will then be asked to complete a survey about your feelings toward the subject of the article. Time required: 45 minutes Risks and Benefits: We do not anticipate that you will benefit directly by participating in this experiment, nor will you be exposed to any risk. Compensation: You will receive course credit for participation in this study [You will receive extra credit in an amount not to exceed 1% of your final grade] Confidentiality: Your identity will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law. Your information will be assigned a code number and your survey answers will not be connected to your name or to this consent form. Thus, your participation is completely anonymous. Voluntary participation: Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. There is no p enalty for not participating. Right to withdraw from the study: You have the right to withdraw from the study at anytime without consequence. Whom to contact if you have questions about the study: Adina M. Thompson, Graduate Student, University of Flo rida Department of Sociology and Criminology & Law, PO Box 117330 Gainesville, FL 32611; Adinamt@ufl.edu Lora Levett, PhD Assistant Professor, University of Florida Department of Sociology and Criminology & Law, PO Box 117330 Gainesville, FL 32611; LLeve tt@ufl.edu Whom to contact about your rights as a research participant in the study: IRB02 Office, Box 112250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 326112250; phone 392 0433. Agreement: I have read the procedure described above. I voluntarily agree to participate in the procedure and I have received a copy of this description. Participant: ___________________________________________ Date: _________________ Principal Investigator: ___________________________________ Date: _________________

PAGE 82

Debriefing Statement In this study, we are investigating whether stigma is levied against people who are exonerated (those who are originally found guilty of a crime and later determined to be innocent). The news article you read was fictional, and its content varied based on the condition you were assigned to. We varied two characteristics of the news articles: The crime in question (robbery, assault, sexual battery or murder) and the subjects guilt (truly guilty or exonerated). So, you read an article with one of the combinations of conditions (e.g., robbery and an exonerated person). We have two hypotheses: 1. Both people who are exonerated and people who are guilty will be stigmatized in the areas of employment, housing, and personal relationships. 2. The severity of the crime is question will have an impact on the level of stigma. Thank you for participating in this study. Your credit should be awarded shortly. If you have any questions, or are interested in the results of this study, please email Adina Thompson at Adinamt@ufl.edu Thank you for your time.

PAGE 83

American Criminal Law Review, 41 Fox News.com. Drake Law, 52 Sociology & Social Research, 17 British Journal of Criminology, 14 British Journal of Criminology,11 Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 46 45 Law Journal, 28, 105128.

PAGE 84

Clear, T.R., Rose, D.R., & Ryder, J.A. (2001). Incarceration and the community: the problem of removing and returning offenders. Crime and Delinquency, 47, 335351. doi:10.1177/0011128701047003003. The prison community: With a foreword After innocence: perceptions of the wrongfully convicted. Civil Penalties, Social Consequences Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82 Psychological Bulletin,117 doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.1.21 Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin, U.S. Department of Justice. Quarterly Journal of Economics 110 doi:10.2307/2118510 The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 95 Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice 46 Crime and Justice, 32 Crime and Delinquency, 32

PAGE 85

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 3 doi:10.1016/0022-1031(67)90034-0 Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior. Convict Criminology American Psychologist, 60 P sychological Science in the Public Interest, 5 American Journal of Criminal Law, 31 Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 14 New York University Journal of Legislation and Public Policy, 11

PAGE 86

News Channel WKTR.com. Representative Resear ch in Social Psychology, 5, Law and Human Behavior, 32 AP LS News The Florida Times Union Federal Probation, 69

PAGE 87

Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 10 Social Psychology Quarterly, 48 Invisible punishment: the collateral consequences of mass incarceration UMKC Law Review, 70