Framing the harms of wrongful convictions: how different narratives shape public opinion

Abstract

Objectives

This research examines whether highlighting different harms of wrongful convictions has differential effects on public attitudes.

Methods

We use an online survey-experiment with 970 respondents recruited through CloudResearch’s MTurk Toolkit. Respondents were randomly assigned to one of five conditions: (1) no-information control group, (2) wrongful conviction narrative, (3) wrongful conviction narrative + exoneree harm, (4) wrongful conviction narrative + original crime victim harm, and (5) wrongful conviction narrative + actual offender harm. We then assessed respondents’ victimization concerns and policy preferences.

Results

Highlighting different harms of wrongful convictions generally did not affect victimization concerns and had little effect on policy preferences. However, narratives about the exoneree’s suffering and public safety concerns consistently increased public support for exoneree compensation. We also found slight ideological differences in responses.

Conclusions

The findings support the notion that the consequences of wrongful convictions for public opinion are nuanced, dynamic, and multifaceted.