My aim in this thesis is to examine whether there are some mitigating factors, i.e. reasons to punish an offender less for his crime than an otherwise similar offender (other than that the offender suffered from mental disorder or disturbance or other forms of irrationality at the time of offence), that are more applicable to socially deprived offenders than to non-socially deprived offenders. I will answer the thesis question through a critical examination of twelve arguments for claiming that there is a mitigating factor that is more applicable to socially deprived offenders, each proposing a different mitigating factor. My conclusions are as follows: (1) Most of the arguments that I examine fail, i.e. they either fail to highlight a genuine mitigating factor, or we do not have much evidence that the mitigating factor highlighted by the argument has a greater applicability to socially deprived offenders than to non-socially deprived offenders. (2) However, one argument, which can be called the no violation of natural duties argument, is successful. (3) Moreover, the improvement of the worst off argument, an argument that is not often discussed in the literature, is particularly noteworthy. If my discussion about that argument is correct, then even if, as I will argue, the mitigating factor highlighted by that argument may not be more applicable to socially deprived offenders than to non-socially deprived offenders, the remaining parts of that argument would still have profound influence on punishment in our unjust societies.

Building on prior work on status-based rejection sensitivity, I propose a social-cognitive model of criminal-status-based rejection sensitivity (RS-criminal record) to account for differences in how people perceive and respond to threats of rejection based on their criminal histories. Study 1 develops a measure of criminal-status-based rejection sensitivity, defined as a tendency to anxiously expect, readily perceive, and negatively react to rejection based on one’s criminal status. Study 2 tests the predictions of the RS-criminal record model that anxious expectations of criminal-status-based rejection are associated with heightened perceptions of criminal-status-based rejection threat and responding to criminal-status-based stressors through self-silencing and anger. Together, Studies 1 and 2 show that RS-criminal record is distinct from general interpersonal rejection sensitivity (RS-personal), race-based rejection sensitivity (RS-race), and other relevant stigma constructs. Study 3 tests the predictions of the RS-criminal record model experimentally, establishing evidence of the negative effects of criminal record disclosure, RS-criminal record, and symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) on interpersonal effectiveness in an interview (as assessed by an interaction partner and outside observers) and subsequent affective states. The three studies also test the prediction, based on the dynamics of our model and evidence from focus groups, that higher levels of RS-criminal record should predict greater PTSD symptom severity. Together, these studies provide evidence of the utility of RS-criminal record to illuminate the psychological and structural pathways through which stigma can undermine the task of social integration after being released from prison.