NCJ Number
88100
Journal
Law and Human Behavior Volume: 7 Issue: 1 Dated: (1983) Pages: 51-58
Date Published
1983
Length
8 pages
Annotation
This study asked subjects to make a series of judgments about the responsibility of a hypothetical defendant who used illegitimate conduct to thwart another individual intent on doing harm. It is based on a least-of-evils principle in law stating that a person confronted with a choice of harming others or being harmed should generally choose the alternative resulting in the least harm.
Abstract
The researcher manipulated factors in the investigation according to the degree of coercion (low, medium, high), the harm done to the victim (low, medium, high), and the availability of a legitimate alternative to the illegitimate conduct chosen (yes or no). Observers judged the actor harshly for performing an illegal action when a legitimate alternative was available and when the amount of harm to the victim exceeded the level of coercion used against the defendant. However, the defendant was exonerated from blame and punishment when legitimate alternatives were not available and when coercion levels exceeded harm levels. Implications of the findings were discussed in relationship to both jury decisionmaking and the attribution of responsibility literature. Data tables and 15 references are included.