OBJECTIVE Some exonerees receive compensation and aid after being exonerated of their wrongful convictions, and some do not. Looking beyond differences in state statutes, we examined possible reasons for biases in receiving compensation (via statutes or civil claims) and other reintegration services. More specifically, we examined how two unique types of false admission of guilt (i.e., false confessions and false guilty pleas) could be associated with biased outcomes in compensation procurement and reintegration outcomes. HYPOTHESES Although we did not have formal hypotheses for this qualitative study, based on the cumulative disadvantage framework (Scherr, Redlich, & Kassin, 2020), we anticipated that both types of false admission of guilt would negatively bias exonerees' experience post-exoneration. More specifically, we expected that exonerees whose cases involved at least one type of false admission of guilt would have a more difficult time obtaining compensation and would experience more negative post-exoneration outcomes, compared with exonerees in general. METHOD We conducted in-depth interviews with three samples: (a) exonerees (n = 19), (b) attorneys who had assisted exonerees with post-exoneration compensation claims (n = 15), and (c) innocence advocates who had worked with exonerees (n = 9). RESULTS Across all samples, interviewees indicated that both forms of false admission of guilt are associated with biases that may influence exonerees' compensation and reintegration efforts. Specifically, interviews revealed that (a) false admissions are associated with disadvantages to exonerees' compensation and reintegration efforts, as predicted by the cumulative disadvantage framework; (b) under specific circumstances, false admissions are associated with advantages benefiting compensation attempts; and (c) false admissions can be nonapplicable (i.e., irrelevant) to reintegration efforts. CONCLUSIONS Together, our findings provide a more nuanced understanding of the role false confessions and false guilty pleas may play post-exoneration. This understanding, derived from those individuals directly involved in the compensation and reintegration processes, is an important step in beginning to right the injustices experienced by those wrongfully convicted. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

中文翻译：

---

与虚假认罪相关的补偿和重返社会偏见的生活经历。


目的 一些无罪释放者在被免除错误定罪后获得赔偿和援助，而另一些则没有。除了各州法规的差异之外，我们还研究了在获得赔偿（通过法规或民事索赔）和其他重返社会服务方面出现偏见的可能原因。更具体地说，我们研究了两种独特的虚假认罪类型（即虚假供述和虚假认罪）如何与赔偿获得和重返社会结果的偏倚结果相关联。假设 尽管我们没有为这项定性研究提供正式的假设，但基于累积劣势框架（Scherr， Redlich和Kassin，2020），我们预计这两种类型的错误认罪都会对无罪者的无罪经历产生负面影响。更具体地说，我们预计与一般无罪释放者相比，案件涉及至少一种虚假认罪的无罪释放者将更难获得赔偿，并且脱罪后会经历更多负面的结果。方法 我们对三个样本进行了深入访谈：（a） 无罪释放者 （n = 19），（b） 协助无罪释放者进行无罪释放后赔偿要求的律师 （n = 15），以及 （c） 曾与无罪释放者合作的无罪倡导者 （n = 9）。结果在所有样本中，受访者表示，这两种形式的虚假认罪都与可能影响无罪释放者赔偿和重返社会工作的偏见有关。 具体来说，访谈显示 （a） 正如累积劣势框架所预测的那样，虚假承认与无罪者补偿和重返社会工作的不利有关;（b） 在特定情况下，虚假承认与有利于赔偿尝试的好处有关;（c） 虚假承认可能不适用于（即无关紧要）重返社会的努力。结论总之，我们的研究结果为假供和假认罪在无罪后可能发挥的作用提供了更细致的理解。这种理解来自那些直接参与赔偿和重返社会过程的个人，是开始纠正那些被错误定罪的人所经历的不公正的重要一步。（PsycInfo 数据库记录 （c） 2024 APA，保留所有权利）。