Perceptions of a Plea Agreement in Cases of Teacher and Adolescent Student Sexual Assault

ABSTRACT

An estimated 90% of reported sexual abuse cases result in a plea agreement. The present study investigated the perception of plea agreements involving a teacher-adolescent student child sexual assault case. A 2 (teacher gender: male or female) x 2 (student gender: male or female) x 2 (punishment type: probation or jail) within-participant design was used with participant gender included as a between-participant factor. Perceptions of the plea agreement served as the dependent variables. Participants (N = 52; 48.1% male, 51.9% female) each read the eight vignettes in a random order and then rated their perceptions (e.g., support for the judicial process, degree of justice served, how upset they were by the plea) of a plea agreement on a 7-point scale. It was found that participants showed less support for plea agreements (1) offered to male teacher offenders compared to female teacher offenders and (2) when the punishment was probation compared to jail time. Additionally, participants’ emotional reactions (e.g., how upset) mediated the relationship between the independent variables (defendant gender and punishment type) and participants’ perception of the plea agreements. Results and implications are discussed in terms of procedural justice and the importance of public perceptions of pleas.

KEYWORDS:

• Child sexual assault
• plea agreements
• procedural justice
• psychology and law

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

The author(s) reported there is no funding associated with the work featured in this article.

Notes on contributors

Andrea M. Pals

Andrea M. Pals, M.S., is a doctoral candidate at the University of Kentucky in the Experimental Social Psychology Ph.D. program. Her research focuses primarily on how cases of sexual assault and rape are handled by the criminal justice system, as impacted by external factors such as rape myth acceptance, stereotypes, and other psychological ideologies.

Jonathan M. Golding

Jonathan M. Golding, Ph.D., received his doctorate from the University of Denver in 1986. He joined the Psychology Department at the University of Kentucky in 1988 and is currently a full professor. His primary research interests include jurors’ reactions to cases of victimization (e.g., child abuse, elder abuse, stalking, and domestic violence).

Mary M. Levi

Mary M. Levi, M.S., is a current clinical psychology doctoral student at the University of Kentucky. Her research focuses primarily on jury decision-making in victimization cases. She is also interested in the intersection of mental health, legal and forensic psychology.