Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Jul 26;17(7):e0272061.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0272061. eCollection 2022.

Morally excused but socially excluded: Denying agency through the defense of mental impairment

Melissa de Vel-Palumbo  1 , Rose Ferguson  2 , Chelsea Schein  3 , Melissa Xue-Ling Chang  4 , Brock Bastian  5
Affiliations

Morally excused but socially excluded: Denying agency through the defense of mental impairment

Melissa de Vel-Palumbo et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Defendants can deny they have agency, and thus responsibility, for a crime by using a defense of mental impairment. We argue that although this strategy may help defendants evade blame, it may carry longer-term social costs, as lay people's perceptions of a person's agency might determine some of the moral rights they grant them. Three randomized between-group experiments (N = 1601) used online vignettes to examine lay perceptions of a hypothetical defendant using a defense of mental impairment (versus a guilty plea). We find that using a defense of mental impairment significantly reduces responsibility, blame, and punitiveness relative to a guilty plea, and these judgments are mediated by perceptions of reduced moral agency. However, after serving their respective sentences, those using the defense are sometimes conferred fewer rights, as reduced agency corresponds to an increase in perceived dangerousness. Our findings were found to be robust across different types of mental impairment, offences/sentences, and using both manipulated and measured agency. The findings have implications for defendants claiming reduced agency through legal defenses, as well as for the broader study of moral rights and mind perception.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1
Models of the effects of using the defense of mental impairment on (a) responsibility; and (b) rights.
Fig 2
Fig 2. Perceived agency of defendant across experimental conditions (+/- 2 SE).
Fig 3
Fig 3. Indirect effect model of using the defense of mental impairment on rights as citizen, via inhibitive agency and dangerousness.
Path values are expressed in unstandardized coefficients.
Fig 4
Fig 4. Means scores for rights as citizen measure (+/- 2 SE).
Fig 5
Fig 5. Dual path model of using the defense of mental impairment on rights as a citizen.
Path values are expressed in unstandardized coefficients.
Fig 6
Fig 6. Dual path model of using the defense of mental impairment on moral standing.
Path values are expressed in unstandardized coefficients.
Fig 7
Fig 7. Dual path model of using the defense of mental impairment on access to services.
Path values are expressed in unstandardized coefficients.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Update of

References

    1. Simon RJ, Ahn-Redding H. The insanity defense, the world over. Lanham: Lexington Books; 2006.
    1. Bastian B, Laham SM, Wilson S, Haslam N, Koval P. Blaming, praising, and protecting our humanity: The implications of everyday dehumanization for judgments of moral status. British Journal of Social Psychology. 2011;50(3):469–83. doi: 10.1348/014466610X521383 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Allnutt S, Samuels A, O’Driscoll C. The insanity defence: From wild beasts to M’Naghten. Australasian Psychiatry. 2007;15(4):292–8. doi: 10.1080/10398560701352181 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Hart HLA, Honoré T. Causation in the law. New York: Oxford University Press; 1985.
    1. Platt AM, Diamond BL. The origins and development of the “wild beast” concept of mental illness and its relation to theories of criminal responsibility. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences. 1965;1(4):355–67.

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources