Gender, Race, and Child Neglect Verdicts

Psychology, Crime & Law | 2026, Vol. 32, No. 1, p. 92-117

The intersection of defendant gender and racialisation in a case of child neglect

Araby Roberts; Department of Psychology, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada

Evelyn Maeder; Institute of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada 

This study investigated the effects of defendant gender (man/ woman) and racialisation (Indigenous/White) on Canadian mock jurors’ verdicts in a case of parent-perpetrated child neglect. The potential intensified negative consequences against Indigenous women, produced by the intersectionality of gender and racialisation, were of particular interest. Four hundred and one participants read a mock trial transcript, provided verdicts on two charges, and rated the defendant on a variety of adjectives. Logistic regressions revealed mock jurors were not influenced by the defendant’s gender or the interaction between the defendant’s gender and racialisation. Racialisation had an unpredicted influence, with an Indigenous defendant receiving fewer guilty verdicts. The adjective ratings moderated the effect of gender on verdicts, but not racialisation. Mock jurors were less likely to find a woman guilty when they held positive impressions of her. This study contributes to previous literature that suggests jurors’ verdicts may be influenced by extralegal factors.

Juror decision-making; defendant gender; defendant race; intersectionality; stereotypes

“The overincarceration of Indigenous peoples is a serious issue resulting from systemic biases that perpetuate and maintain the colonisation of Indigenous peoples in Canada.” The authors note that “child welfare investigations of Indigenous families involve a mother 79.0% of the time,” raising the possibility that “an interplay of both gender- and race-based stereotypes contribute to case outcomes.” Drawing on “intersectionality,” which predicts that “the effects of gender and race interact to produce greater negative consequences for racialized women,” the study examined “the effects of a defendant’s gender (man or woman) and racialisation (Indigenous or White) on mock jurors’ decision-making in a case of child neglect perpetrated by a parent.” The authors predicted, “a woman defendant [would receive] more guilty verdicts than a man,” that “an Indigenous defendant [would receive] more guilty verdicts than a White defendant,” and that “Indigenous mothers” would receive the harshest judgments because “racialized women suffer intensified negative consequences” (p. 92-99).

“Four hundred and one Canadian participants” were recruited and “randomly assigned to read one of four mock trial transcripts depicting a case of child neglect allegedly perpetrated by a parent.” The transcript involved a parent charged with “failure to provide the necessaries of life” and “criminal negligence causing bodily harm” after a child was hospitalized with septic shock. The materials were “identical aside from the accused’s gender (mother or father) and racialisation (Indigenous or White).” Participants “returned a verdict of guilty or not guilty for each of the two charges,” rated the defendant using a large adjective checklist, completed demographic measures, and passed attention and manipulation checks. The study used “a 2 (defendant gender: woman, man) × 2 (defendant racialisation: Indigenous, White) between-subjects design” to examine verdicts and impressions of the defendant (p. 99-101).

The findings did not support the primary hypotheses. “Gender alone and the gender-racialisation interaction did not directly influence verdicts.” Contrary to expectations, “defendant racialisation was the only significant predictor of verdict,” and “the odds of a guilty verdict were lower for an Indigenous defendant than a White defendant.” The authors note that “Indigenous defendants were less likely to receive a guilty verdict than White defendants,” an effect that was “contrary to the hypothesised association between defendant racialisation and mock juror verdict.” The adjective measures also produced an unexpected result. Rather than measuring distinct gender and Indigenous stereotypes, “the adjectives formed a single scale that more accurately represented defendant impressions.” These impressions mattered because “the defendant impressions scale significantly moderated the effect of defendant gender on verdict,” such that “the odds of a woman defendant being found guilty was lower when participants had high (i.e., positive) impressions of her” (p. 101-104).

In discussing gender, the authors conclude that “women were not significantly more likely to be found guilty for either charge,” meaning “this hypothesis was not supported.” However, they also observed that “mock jurors’ impressions of the defendant significantly moderated the relationship between gender and verdict,” and that “mock jurors were steered toward leniency by their impressions of a defendant—leniency specifically afforded to a woman, but not a man, and only when they held positive impressions of her.” At the same time, “a mother was perceived more negatively than a father,” suggesting that “gender stereotypes about parenting remain pervasive in Canadian society.” The authors argue that “a neglectful mother may be perceived as more violating than a neglectful father, and therefore be more vulnerable to negative impressions,” even if those impressions did not directly translate into more guilty verdicts (p. 104-109).

The discussion of racialisation focused on the unexpected finding that “Indigenous defendants were less likely to receive a guilty verdict than White defendants.” The authors suggest this “may be related to an increased understanding by Canadians of the inequalities Indigenous peoples face,” particularly following widespread public attention to residential schools and the discovery of unmarked graves. They note that participants may have been motivated by “a desire to combat systemic inequalities against Indigenous peoples,” although they also acknowledge the possibility that participants provided “socially-desirable responses.” The predicted effect of intersectionality “was not supported; specifically, Indigenous women were not more likely to be found guilty.” Nevertheless, impressions data revealed that “a White mother was perceived more negatively than an Indigenous woman and an Indigenous or White man.” The authors suggest that “child neglect may be viewed as consistent with Indigenous mother stereotypes but inconsistent with White mother stereotypes,” and that “positive stereotypes about motherhood apply to White, but not Indigenous, mothers.” Overall, the findings indicate that “jurors’ decision-making is influenced by extralegal factors,” although not always in the direction predicted, and that perceptions of defendants may be shaped by complex interactions among gender, racialisation, and stereotypes” (p. 104-109). 

“Given that juries are composed of laypersons who have their own interpretations and understandings of the law and court cases, the use of juries naturally creates disparity in the courts. However, this research suggests that families who are involved in the legal system because of child neglect may experience disparities due to legally irrelevant characteristics: specifically their racialisation and, for women, jurors’ impressions of them.

In the context of recent events, the consequences of residential schools and colonialism may be more present in Canadian minds. The current study suggests jurors may desire to treat Indigenous defendants leniently, which could improve the experiences of Indigenous peoples who are involved in the justice system by reducing bias against them. Unfortunately, this leniency is not reflected in the continued and growing overincarceration of Indigenous peoples (Zinger, 2020, Zinger, 2022, as cited in White, 2022). However, overincarceration has varied and wide-ranging causes and contributing factors. Indigenous peoples point to, among others, plea bargaining, cultural genocide, assimilation, intergenerational trauma, over- and under-policing, and lack of culturally-relevant rehabilitation (Aboriginal Justice Implementation Commission, 1999; Carling, 2017; Ontario Human Rights Commission, 2003; TRC, 2015).

Efforts to resolve the issues Indigenous peoples face in the justice system should be led by Indigenous peoples’ own perspectives, cultures, and traditions. One example is Indigenous justice, which is an approach by Indigenous communities that uses voluntary participation to promote healing for all parties involved in an offence, including the wrongdoer and those harmed (Mandamin, 2021). Mandamin, an Anishinaabe former Federal Court Justice, proposed that Indigenous justice approaches have four common aspects: they (1) are created and delivered by an Indigenous community; (2) are based on the community’s culture and experiences; (3) engage with social disorder and the Canadian criminal justice system; and (4) address social disorder in the community and the overincarceration of Indigenous peoples.

The verdict splits in the pilot and the main study showed a large disparity: for failure to provide the necessaries of life, 64.7% of pilot participants and 20.7% of main study participants voted guilty; for criminal negligence, the conviction rate was 67.6% and 25.3% for pilot and main study participants, respectively. This may suggest a discrepancy between how undergraduate students and the general Canadian population interpret criminal trials, evidence, and the legal standard of guilt. As discussed by Sivasubramaniam et al. (2020), student samples have previously been found to provide verdicts that are more lenient (e.g. Berman & Cutler, 1996) or more punitive (e.g. Neuschatz et al., 2008) than community samples. In combination with the current study, this indicates potential problems with generalisability when students are used to replace community samples. Although a meta-analysis of mock juror research by (Bornstein et al., 2017) found student and non-student samples provide similar dichotomous verdicts, jury researchers have previously voiced concerns about student samples. For example, Lieberman et al. (2016) found jury researchers perceived actual venire members and community members to be equally highly acceptable as samples, and students less acceptable” (p. 109-110).

“These findings are subject to some important limitations. The gender and Indigeneity adjective checklists did not function as we expected and to account for this, we used a single defendant impressions scale rather than a gender stereotype scale and an Indigeneity stereotype scale. Ecological validity is limited by our use of individual verdicts, given that jurors in real-life cases have group deliberations and come to a unanimous decision; previous research has demonstrated that group deliberation may exacerbate (Lynch & Haney, 2011) or ameliorate (Sommers, 2006) defendant race effects. Participants were aware this mock trial lacked consequentiality, i.e. they knew their decisions did not have consequences for a real-life case or defendant. It is unclear what effect, if any, this may have had on mock jurors; literature on consequentiality is limited and shows mixed findings (Bornstein & McCabe, 2005). This study used a trial transcript instead of a more realistic presentation, such as a videotaped trial. However, previous studies suggest mock jurors are unlikely to be affected by different trial modalities (Bornstein, 1999), including their judgments of guilt (Pezdek et al., 2010) and their memories of trial information (Pritchard & Keenan, 1999).

Ecological validity was supported by adapting an actual court case and recruiting Canadian adults from the general population. Overall, our study used modalities that jury researchers find to be acceptable or even necessary: a community sample, a written transcript, dichotomous guilty/not guilty verdicts (highly acceptable); and cross-examinations of witnesses, opening and closing statements, and jury instructions (necessary; Lieberman et al., 2016).

Administering the study online may have affected data quality, given the inability to control participants’ environments or ensure they paid full attention (Advisory Group on Conducting Research on the Internet, 2002). This was mitigated by using attention, memory, and manipulation checks to ensure the final sample paid attention to the survey” (p. 110).