Advertisement

Framing innocence: an experimental test of the effects of wrongful convictions on public opinion

  • Robert J. NorrisEmail author
  • Kevin J. Mullinix
Article

Abstract

Objectives

Discourse about criminal justice in the USA increasingly revolves around wrongful convictions. Research has documented the emergence of the “innocence frame,” but relatively little is known about its effects on public opinion. We utilize framing theory to examine how various presentations of wrongful conviction information affect attitudes toward the justice system and highlight the consequences of the innocence movement for public opinion.

Methods

We implement two survey experiments to test the effects of innocence information for criminal justice attitudes. In the first experiment, we test the impact of wrongful conviction numbers relative to a control group for death penalty support. In the second experiment, we analyze the effects—both separately and jointly—of exoneration numbers and a wrongful conviction narrative relative to a control group for attitudes toward the death penalty and police reform, trust in the justice system, and personal concern.

Results

We demonstrate that the presentation of factual numbers of exonerations reduces support for capital punishment and erodes trust in the justice system, but fails to garner support for police reforms or increase personal concern about wrongful convictions. However, a narrative about an individual wrongful conviction predictably has more pronounced effects on death penalty attitudes and increases personal concern and support for police reform, but has little effect on trust in the justice system more broadly.

Conclusions

Wrongful convictions are consequential for public opinion, but the effects are contingent on how the information is framed and the attitudinal outcome of interest. Our findings have implications for criminal justice attitudes and policy, the innocence movement, and framing theory.

Keywords

Wrongful conviction Innocence Miscarriage of justice Exoneration Death penalty Public opinion Framing theory Police reform Survey experiment 

Notes

Supplementary material

11292_2019_9360_MOESM1_ESM.docx (163 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 163 kb)

References

  1. Aaroe, L. (2011). Investigating frame strength: the case of episodic and thematic frames. Political Communication, 28, 207–226.Google Scholar
  2. Acker, J. R. (2013). The flipside injustice of wrongful convictions: when the guilty go free. Albany Law Review, 76, 1629–1712.Google Scholar
  3. American Community Survey. (2012). Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/guidance/comparing-acs-data/2012.html. Accessed 16 May 2019
  4. Alexander, M. (2012). The new Jim Crow: mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness. New York: New Press.Google Scholar
  5. Applegate, B. K., & Sanborn, J. B. (2011). Public opinion on the harshness of local courts: an experimental test of question wording effects. Criminal Justice Review, 36, 487–497.Google Scholar
  6. Baumer, E. P., Messner, S. F., & Rosenfeld, R. (2003). Explaining spatial variation in support for capital punishment: a multilevel analysis. American Journal of Sociology, 108, 844–875.Google Scholar
  7. Baumgartner, F. R., DeBoef, S. L., & Boydstun, A. E. (2008). The decline of the death penalty and the discovery of innocence. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Baumgartner, F. R., Grigg, A., Ramirez, R., Rose, K. J., & Lucy, J. S. (2018). The mayhem of wrongful liberty: documenting the crimes of true perpetrators in cases of wrongful incarceration. Albany Law Review, 81, 1261–1286.Google Scholar
  9. Bell, J. G., Clow, K. A., & Ricciardelli, R. (2008). Causes of wrongful conviction: looking at student knowledge. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 19, 75–96.Google Scholar
  10. Bobo, L. D., & Johnson, D. (2004). A taste for punishment: black and white Americans’ views on the death penalty and the war on drugs. Du Bois Review, 1, 151–180.Google Scholar
  11. Borg, M. J. (1997). The southern subculture of punitiveness? Regional variation in support for capital punishment. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 34, 25–45.Google Scholar
  12. Brace, P., & Boyea, B. D. (2008). State public opinion, the death penalty, and the practice of electing judges. American Journal of Political Science, 52, 360–372.Google Scholar
  13. Brace, P. R., & Hall, M. G. (1997). The interplay of preferences, case facts, context, and rules in the politics of judicial choice. Journal of Politics, 59, 1206–1231.Google Scholar
  14. Burstein, P. (2003). The impact of public opinion on public policy: a review and an agenda. Political Research Quarterly, 56, 29–40.Google Scholar
  15. Busby, E. C., Flynn, D. J., & Druckman, J. N. (2018). Studying framing effects on political preferences: existing research and lingering questions. In P. D’Angelo (Ed.), Doing news framing analysis II. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Butler, R., Nyhan, B., & Montgomery, J. M. (2018). Revisiting white backlash: does race affect death penalty opinion. Research and Politics, 5, 1–9.Google Scholar
  17. Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007a). Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 103–126.Google Scholar
  18. Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007b). Framing public opinion in competitive democracies. American Political Science Review, 101, 637–655.Google Scholar
  19. Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2010). Dynamic public opinion: communication effects over time. American Political Science Review, 104, 663–680.Google Scholar
  20. Cohen, J., Tal-Or, N., & Mazor-Tregerman, M. (2015). The tempering effect of transportation. Journal of Communication, 65, 237–258.Google Scholar
  21. Dardis, F. E., Baumgartner, F. R., Boydstun, A. E., De Boef, S., & Shen, F. (2008). Media framing of capital punishment and its impact on individuals’ cognitive responses. Mass Communication and Society, 11, 115–140.Google Scholar
  22. De Graaf, A., Hoeken, H., & Sanders, J. (2011). Identification as a mechanism of narrative persuasion. Communication Research, 20, 1–22.Google Scholar
  23. Donovan, K. M., & Klahm, C. F. (2018). How priming innocence influences public opinion on police misconduct and false convictions: a research note. Criminal Justice Review, 43, 174–185.Google Scholar
  24. Druckman, J. N. (2001). On the limits of framing effects: who can frame? Journal of Politics, 63, 1041–1066.Google Scholar
  25. Druckman, J. N., & Leeper, T. J. (2012). Learning more from political communication experiments: pretreatment and its effects. American Journal of Political Science, 56, 875–896.Google Scholar
  26. Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
  27. Fan, D. P., Keltner, K. A., & Wyatt, R. O. (2002). A matter of guilt or innocence: how news reports affect support for the death penalty in the United States. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 14, 439–452.Google Scholar
  28. Flatow, N. (2013). Ten ways criminal justice is one of the great civil rights crises of our time. Think Progress August 28. https://thinkprogress.org.
  29. Gallup News. n.d. Death penalty. http://news.gallup.com/poll/1606/death-penalty.aspx (Feb. 16, 2018).
  30. Gamson, W. A., & Modigiliani, A. (1989). Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: a constructionist approach. American Journal of Sociology, 95, 1–37.Google Scholar
  31. Garrett, B. L. (2011). Convicting the innocent: where criminal prosecutions go wrong. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Green, M. C., & Brock, T. C. (2000). The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public narratives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 701–721.Google Scholar
  33. Gross, K. (2008). Framing persuasive appeals: episodic and thematic framing, emotional response, and policy opinion. Political Psychology, 29, 169–192.Google Scholar
  34. Gross, S. R. (2017). What we think, what we know and what we think we know about false convictions. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 14, 753–786.Google Scholar
  35. Gross, S. R., O’Brien, B., Hu, C., & Kennedy, E. H. (2014). Rate of false conviction of criminal defendants who are sentenced to death. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111, 7230–7235.Google Scholar
  36. Haider-Markel, D. P., & Joslyn, M. R. (2001). Gun policy, opinion, tragedy, and blame attribution: the conditional influence of issue frames. Journal of Politics, 63, 520–543.Google Scholar
  37. Huff, C. R., Rattner, A., & Sagarin, E. (1986). Guilty until proved innocent: wrongful conviction and public policy. Crime & Delinquency, 32, 518–544.Google Scholar
  38. Iyengar, S. (1991). Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  39. Iyengar, S. (1996). Framing responsibility for political issues. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 546, 59–70.Google Scholar
  40. Junkin, T. (2004). Bloodsworth. Chapel Hill: Algonquin Books.Google Scholar
  41. Kaeble, D., & Glaze, L. (2016). Correctional populations in the United States, 2015. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
  42. Kassin, S. M., Drizin, S. A., Grisso, T., Gudjonsson, G. H., Leo, R. A., & Redlich, A. D. (2010). Police-induced confessions: risk factors and recommendations. Law and Human Behavior, 34, 3–38.Google Scholar
  43. Kent, S., & Carmichael, J. T. (2015). Legislative responses to wrongful conviction: do partisan principals and advocacy efforts influence state-level criminal justice policy? Social Science Research, 52, 147–160.Google Scholar
  44. Kuhne, R., Weber, P., & Sommer, K. (2015). Beyond cognitive framing processes. Journal of Communication, 65, 259–279.Google Scholar
  45. Lambert, E., & Clarke, A. (2001). The impact of information on an individual’s support of the death penalty: a partial test of the Marshall hypothesis among college students. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 12, 215–234.Google Scholar
  46. Lambert, E. G., Camp, S. D., Clarke, A., & Jiang, S. (2011). The impact of information on death penalty support, revisited. Crime & Delinquency, 57, 572–599.Google Scholar
  47. Leeper, T., & Mullinix, K. J. (2018). Motivated reasoning. Oxford bibliographies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199756223/obo-9780199756223-0237.xml. Accessed 16 May 2019
  48. Lord, C. G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: the effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 2098–2109.Google Scholar
  49. Marshall, L. C. (2004). The innocence revolution and the death penalty. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 1, 1573–1584.Google Scholar
  50. Medwed, D. S. (2008). Innocentrism. University of Illinois Law Review, 2008, 1549–1572.Google Scholar
  51. Mooney, C. Z., & Lee, M. (2000). The influence of values on consensus and contentious morality policy: U.S. death penalty reform, 1956-1982. Journal of Politics, 62, 223–239.Google Scholar
  52. National Registry of Exonerations. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/about.aspx. Accessed 16 May 2019
  53. National Research Council. (2009). Strengthening forensic science in the United States: a path forward. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  54. Nededog, J. (2016). Here’s how popular Netflix’s ‘making a murderer’ really was according to a research company. Business Insider February 12. http://www.businessinsider.com.
  55. Nelson, T. E., Clawson, R. A., & Oxley, Z. M. (1997). Media framing of civil liberties conflict and its effect on tolerance. American Political Science Review, 91, 567–583.Google Scholar
  56. Nisbett, R., & Ross, L. (1980). Human inference: strategies and shortcoming in social judgment. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  57. Norrander, B. (2000). The multi-layered impact of public opinion on capital punishment implementation in the American states. Political Research Quarterly, 53, 771–793.Google Scholar
  58. Norris, R. J. (2017). Exonerated: a history of the innocence movement. New York: NYU Press.Google Scholar
  59. Norris, R. J., Bonventre, C. L., Redlich, A. D., Acker, J. R., & Lowe, C. (2017). Preventing wrongful convictions: an analysis of state investigation reforms. Criminal Justice Policy Review. Online first,  https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403416687359.
  60. Norris, R. J., Weintraub, J. N., Acker, J. R., Redlich, A. D., & Bonventre, C. L. (forthcoming). The criminal costs of wrongful convictions: can we reduce crime by protecting the innocent? Criminology & Public Policy.Google Scholar
  61. Nyman, S. (2016). Just how popular is ‘making a murderer’? Appleton Post-Crescent January 14. https://www.postcrescent.com.
  62. Park, S., Holody, K. J., & Zhang, X. (2012). Race in media coverage of school shootings: a parallel application of framing theory and attribute agenda setting. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 89, 475–494.Google Scholar
  63. Peelo, M. (2006). Framing homicide narratives in newspapers: mediated witness and the construction of virtual victimhood. Crime, Media, Culture, 2, 59–75.Google Scholar
  64. Pew Research Center. (2017). Since 2015, sharp rise in share of Republicans saying colleges have a negative effect on the country. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/07/20/republicans-skeptical-of-colleges-impact-on-u-s-but-most-see-benefits-for-workforce-preparation/ft_17-07-20_collegessince2015/. Accessed 16 May 2019
  65. Peffley, M., & Hurwitz, J. (2007). Persuasion and resistance: race and the death penalty in America. American Journal of Political Science, 51, 996–1012.Google Scholar
  66. Price, V., & Tewksbury, D. (1997). News values and public opinion: a theoretical account of media priming and framing. In G. Barnett & F. J. Boster (Eds.), Progress in communications Sciences. Greenwich: Ablex Publishing.Google Scholar
  67. Ramirez, M. D. (2013). Punitive sentiment. Criminology, 51, 329–364.Google Scholar
  68. Ramsey, R. J., & Frank, J. (2007). Wrongful conviction: perceptions of justice professionals regarding the frequency of wrongful conviction and the extent of system errors. Crime & Delinquency, 53, 436–470.Google Scholar
  69. Ricciardelli, R., & Clow, K. A. (2012). The impact of an exoneree’s guest lecture on students’ attitudes toward wrongly convicted persons. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 23, 127–147.Google Scholar
  70. Ricciardelli, R., Bell, J. G., & Clow, K. A. (2009). Student attitudes toward wrongful conviction. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 51, 411–427.Google Scholar
  71. Sarat, A., Kermes, R., Cambra, H., Curran, A., Kiley, M., & Pant, K. (2017). The rhetoric of abolition: continuity and change in the struggle against America’s death penalty, 1900-2010. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 107, 757–780.Google Scholar
  72. Shanahan, E. A., Jones, M. D., McBeth, M. K., & Radaelli, C. M. (2018). The narrative policy framework. In C. M. Weible & P. A. Sabatier (Eds.), Theories of the policy process. New York: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  73. Simmons, A. D. (2017). Cultivating support for punitive criminal justice policies: news sectors and the moderating effects of audience characteristics. Social Forces, 96, 299–327.Google Scholar
  74. Slothuus, R., & de Vreese, C. H. (2010). Political parties, motivated reasoning, and issue framing effects. Journal of Politics, 72, 630–645.Google Scholar
  75. Smith, B., Zalman, M., & Kiger, A. (2011). How justice system officials view wrongful convictions. Crime & Delinquency, 57, 663–685.Google Scholar
  76. Soss, J., Langbein, L., & Metelko, A. R. (2003). Why do white Americans support the death penalty? The Journal of Politics, 65, 397–421.Google Scholar
  77. Sullivan, S.P. (2017). What happens if you’re wrongfully convicted in N.J.? Retrieved from https://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/03/what_happens_if_youre_wrongfully_convicted_in_nj.html.
  78. Tal-Or, N., Boninger, D. S., Poran, A., & Gleicher, F. (2004). Counterfactual thinking as a mechanism in narrative persuasion. Human Communication Research, 30, 301–328.Google Scholar
  79. Unnever, J. D., & Cullen, F. T. (2005). Executing the innocent and support for capital punishment: implications for public policy. Criminology & Public Policy, 4, 3–38.Google Scholar
  80. Unnever, J. D., & Cullen, F. T. (2007). Reassessing the racial divide in support for capital punishment: the continuing significance of race. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 44, 124–158.Google Scholar
  81. Warden, R. (2012). How and why Illinois abolished the death penalty. Minnesota Journal of Law and Inequality, 30, 245–286.Google Scholar
  82. Wells, T., & Leo, R. A. (2008). The wrong guys: murder, false confessions, and the Norfolk Four. New York: The New Press.Google Scholar
  83. Wells, G. L., Small, M., Penrod, S., Malpass, R. S., Fulero, S. M., & Brimacombe, C. A. E. (1998). Eyewitness identification procedures: recommendations for lineups and photospreads. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 603–647.Google Scholar
  84. Zalman, M., Larson, M. J., & Smith, B. (2012). Citizens’ attitudes toward wrongful convictions. Criminal Justice Review, 37, 51–69.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.George Mason UniversityFairfaxUSA
  2. 2.University of KansasLawrenceUSA

Personalised recommendations