Veterans are disproportionately represented in the criminal justice system in the United States [ 18 ], in which veterans comprise approximately 9% of the prison population while comprising 7% of the overall population. This disproportionate representation of veterans in the criminal justice system is not accounted for by any social characteristics associated with veterans. The present research examined the impact of a post-arrest diagnosis on juror decision making. This was done to add to a small but growing corpus of knowledge related to the issue of PTSD and the criminal justice system.

Taking into account the desire to avoid stigma associated with PTSD [ 6 ] and the notion that certain symptoms of PTSD can contribute to criminal behavior, a person can find themselves in court because of, at least in part, untreated PTSD. This reluctance to seek mental healthcare has been related to several other negative health outcomes. Untreated PTSD is persistent [ 12 ] and has been associated with damaging stress on family and social relationships [ 13 ]. Further, PTSD has been associated with general physical health symptoms [ 14 15 ], and it has a known comorbidity with alcoholism and other substance abuse disorders that carry their own health and social risks [ 16 17 ].

Research has shown that PTSD diagnoses are susceptible to malingering because the diagnosis relies heavily on a person’s self-report of symptoms [ 11 ]. There are several reasons why a person may malinger PTSD. Financial gains are obvious in that a person can receive money from their government in the form of disability payments. These payments can be substantial and result in other gains, money for school, and other considerations. Personal gain is particularly highlighted in the case of escaping criminal liability, where a PTSD diagnosis can alleviate personal responsibility. When there is a real or perceived gain from the diagnosis, it is more likely that a juror perceives the PTSD claim as malingered. No previous research has empirically examined the effects of perceived malingering in relation to juror verdicts.

Malingering and/or symptom exaggeration is fairly common in some instances, though, in criminal cases, researchers show a 19% prevalence [ 10 ]. Nearly one-fifth of criminal cases were found to have some evidence of malingering. This is problematic because a person could benefit from receiving a PTSD diagnosis if it helped them escape punishment. Whether or not the person truly has PTSD is immaterial to the purposes of the present research, as the examination is about juror responses to what could be malingered PTSD. The present research does not differentiate between exaggerated symptoms and malingering.

Jurors may view a post-arrest diagnosis of PTSD as an attempt to escape punishment, and some may note the ease by which PTSD can be malingered [ 8 ]. Some people may not seek treatment because of perceived stigma [ 9 ], which could leave them in a situation where their PTSD diagnosis is given after an arrest. This can lead to perceptions of malingering, which, in turn, would remove the bias towards treatment seen in previous research [ 7 ].

This phenomenon illustrates why it is necessary to diagnose and help those in need, before their lives are disrupted by criminal court proceedings. The present research examines one facet of this problem, PTSD diagnosis before or after an arrest. Previous research has shown a bias towards treatment for veterans with PTSD when verdict options beyond “guilty” and “not guilty” were available [ 7 ]. That research did not examine the influence of perceived malingering on juror verdicts. The present research was designed to remedy this. Examining the impact of said issues in a criminal court setting allows us to see the impact of perceived malingering of PTSD. This approach details, in a practical setting, the importance of early diagnosis and intervention to avoid future criminal justice issues and quality of life problems.

Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) has received attention because of the prevalence of the condition in veterans from Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), and Operation New Dawn (OND). Associated with this is the supposed connection between some symptoms of PTSD and criminal behavior [ 1 ], for example, hypervigilance. The scientific evidence linking PTSD and criminal behavior is inconclusive [ 2 ], though still believed by some to resolved. Though in many cases defense attorneys avoid the so-called insanity-defense [ 3 4 ] PTSD has been shown to be a mitigating factor in criminal proceedings [ 5 ]. Unfortunately, there is a stigma associated with PTSD (real or perceived is immaterial) that could discourage people from seeking assistance and mental healthcare [ 6 ]. This stigma can lead to people not seeking help until they reach a negative social position and find themselves involved in the criminal justice system. A defense attorney may attempt to use PTSD as a defense for their client, which would require an evaluation by mental health professionals after the person has been arrested. This post-arrest diagnosis may be perceived as malingering by jurors and not serve to help a person who is suffering. This is the reason that defense attorneys often avoid the insanity defense, as it is often seen by juries to be an attempt to avoid responsibility [ 3 4 ]. For this reason, it is hypothesized that a post-arrest diagnosis is mistrusted and could be viewed as self-serving.

2. Materials and Methods

The present study was a 2 (veteran status: veteran vs. non-veteran) by 3 (diagnosis timing: no diagnosis vs. post-arrest diagnosis vs. pre-arrest diagnosis) between-subjects design. The research protocol was approved by the university IRB (17-071). Two-hundred and twenty-eight people participated in this study. Two participants did not render a verdict, so they were excluded from analysis (final N = 226). The average age of the participants was 20.85 years ( SD = 4.123; range 18–43 years old). The sample was predominately female ( n = 166). The sample was comprised of college students in a small southeastern United States university.

Participants were randomly assigned to read a trial vignette that showed a defendant who was either a veteran or a non-veteran and revealed information about PTSD diagnosis. The trial vignette detailed a violent encounter in which a person suffered personal injury that was not life threatening. For the non-veteran condition, military service, or the lack thereof, was not mentioned. In the no diagnosis condition, there was no mention of PTSD. The no diagnosis condition was included in this study to serve as a control condition. After participants had read the trial vignette, they were asked to render a verdict of guilty, not guilty, or diverted to treatment. The participants that rendered a guilty verdict were presented with a short survey consisting of three items that measured the severity of the recommended punishment (“how long should the defendant spend in prison”). Participants who rendered a diverted to treatment verdict were shown a list of prohibitions and required activities that they could endorse for the defendant, and they were questioned as to how long the defendant should be under court supervision. All participants were given a short survey that assessed their trust of the criminal justice system. This was assessed to test for a potential moderator of verdict.