Rules of moral judgment implemented by individuals who had committed unlawful acts and served prison terms were compared with rules implemented by individuals without prison records for the same judgment situations. The rules concerned a situation in which two pieces of information
were provided: information on the severity of the act committed and information on intent of the person who committed the act. The subjects were asked to use this information to judge the degree of deserved punishment. There appear to be no fundamental differences in integration patterns between
subjects with and without prison records. In both cases, Damage and Intent (only if demonstrated) are generally taken into account simultaneously and integrated in an additive fashion. The only important difference is, as predicted, in the lesser degree of importance assigned to the intent
factor in subjects with prison records; as a consequence, these subjects tend to attribute less severe punishment in general.