Examining the effect of prison time on landlords' willingness to rent to exonerees: A test of the stigma-by-association framework.

Researchers posit that stigma-by-association may account for the discrimination that exonerees experience post-release. Exonerees who serve a longer prison sentence may experience more stigma than exonerees who spent less time in prison. Across two studies, we examined whether criminal history (exoneree, releasee, or control) or prison time (5 or 25 years) impacted landlords' willingness to rent their apartment. Authors responded to one-bedroom apartment listings in the Greater Toronto Area, Canada, inquiring about unit availability. The rental inquiries were identical except for criminal history and prison time. Across both studies, results demonstrated that landlords were significantly less likely to respond, and indicate availability, to exonerees and releasees compared to control. Landlords discriminated against exonerees when the exoneree did not mention a formal exoneration (Study 1) and explicitly mentioned that he was exonerated by DNA evidence (Study 2). Prison time had no significant impact. A content analysis of landlords' replies revealed that exonerees and releasees experienced more subtle forms of discrimination compared to individuals without a criminal history. Together, our results demonstrate that individuals who were formerly incarcerated and associated with prison-whether it be for 5 years or 25 years or a rightful or wrongful conviction-experience housing discrimination upon their release.

The effects of race and criminal history on landlords' (un)willingness to rent to exonerees.

OBJECTIVE: When wrongfully convicted individuals are released from prison, at first glance, it is a triumph; however, anecdotal evidence from exonerees suggests that obtaining housing postrelease is often challenging. We empirically examined whether race (Study 1) or type of criminal offense (Study 2) influenced landlords' willingness to rent to exonerees compared to releasees (i.e., rightfully convicted individuals released from prison) and control (i.e., members of the public). HYPOTHESES: We hypothesized that: (a) exonerees and releasees would receive fewer replies and fewer "yes" available responses compared to control, (b) Indigenous and Black renters would receive fewer replies and fewer "yes" available responses compared to White renters, and (c) individuals convicted of murder would receive fewer replies and fewer "yes" available responses compared to individuals convicted of robbery. METHOD: The authors responded to online apartment listings across Canada (Study 1) and in Toronto (Study 2) inquiring about unit availability. All rental inquiries were identical with the exception of criminal status and race (Study 1), and criminal status and criminal offense (Study 2). RESULTS: Results demonstrated that landlords were significantly less likely to respond (Study 1: OR = 4.32, 95% CI [3.28, 5.69]; Study 2: OR = 7.88, 95% CI [4.97, 12.48]), and indicate availability (Study 1: OR = 6.62, 95% CI [3.54, 12.38]; Study 2: OR = 21.53, 95% CI [7.07, 65.58]), to rental inquiries from exonerees and releasees compared to members of the public. For race, landlords were significantly less likely to respond to inquiries from Indigenous and Black renters compared to White renters (OR = 1.45, 95% CI [1.12, 1.86]), and those convicted of robbery compared to murder (OR = 1.69, 95% CI [.36, .97]). CONCLUSION: The barriers that exonerees face when attempting to secure housing postrelease are potentially as great as those facing releasees; however, exonerees do not receive assistance with reentry. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Putting negative attitudes on the agenda? Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act publicity and juror decision-making.

The current study examined the effect of publicity about Canada's recent Not Criminally Responsible (NCR) Reform Act - legislation surrounding accused in insanity cases that purportedly aims to enhance public safety - on juror decision-making. In line with agenda-setting theory, we expected that NCR Reform Act publicity might reinforce certain fears about the insanity defence, dependent on whether it had either a positive or negative evaluative slant. Contrary to previous work on the insanity defence, participants in this study generally favoured a NCR verdict. The evaluative slant of the NCR publicity had no effect on verdict decisions or insanity defence attitudes, but there was a significant difference in participants' evaluations of the fairness of the Reform Act, such that those exposed to a positive or control article viewed the act as fairer than those exposed to a negative article. This study may aid future researchers in evaluating potential unintended consequences of the NCR Reform Act.