Diminished responsibility as a mitigating circumstance in juvenile offenders' legal judgments.

The legal judgments of 20 juvenile offenders and 20 non-offenders were examined for three types of crimes: assault, arson and treason. Mitigating circumstances cast in the form of an inability to control events consisted of brain damage, passion and economic need, in contrast to a situation in which no mitigating circumstances were offered. The results indicated that despite the often-made legal argument, neither group regarded passion and economic need as circumstances warranting the reduction of sentencing. Compared to the non-offender group, offenders rated brain damage as less mitigating. While non-offenders rated passion and economic need more severely than brain damage, offenders' ratings of the three circumstances did not differ significantly. The findings are discussed in terms of perceptions of control and structural-developmental approaches to socialization.