Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
M. Perlin (1989)
Mental Disability Law: Civil and Criminal
B. Sales (1981)
The trial process
A. Elwork, B. Sales, James Alfini (1982)
Making jury instructions understandable
A. Elwork, B. Sales, D. Suggs (1981)
The Trial: A Research Reviews
V. Smith (1991)
Impact of pretrial instruction on jurors' information processing and decision makingJournal of Applied Psychology, 76
S. Kassin, L. Wrightsman (1988)
The American Jury on Trial: Psychological Perspectives
S. Brodsky (1980)
Criminal Justice and BehaviorCriminal Justice and Behavior, 7
A. Elwork, B. Sales, James Alfini (1977)
In Ignorance of the Law or in Light of It
R. Stubblefield (1966)
Behavioral sciences and the law.The American journal of orthopsychiatry, 36 5
L. Severance, E. Loftus (1982)
Improving the Ability of Jurors to Comprehend and Apply Criminal Jury InstructionsLaw & Society Review, 17
R. Pasewark, H. McGinley (1985)
Insanity Plea: National Survey of Frequency and SuccessJournal of Psychiatry and Law, 13
Scott Decker (1979)
Law and Society ReviewJournal of Drug Issues, 9
J. Pfeifer (1990)
Reviewing the Empirical Evidence on Jury Racism: Findings of Discrimination or Discriminatory Findings?Nebraska law review, 69
Wayne Weiten, S. Diamond (1979)
A critical review of the jury simulation paradigmLaw and Human Behavior, 3
D. Hermann (1983)
Convicting or Confining? Alternative Directions in Insanity Law Reform: Guilty But Mentally Ill Versus New Rules for Release of Insanity AcquitteesBYU Law Review, 1983
D. Kagehiro (1990)
Psycholegal Research on the Fourth AmendmentPsychological Science, 1
Robert Sauer, Paul Mullens (1976)
The insantiy defense: M'Naghten vs. ALI.The Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 4 1
T. Scheff, R. Simon (1968)
The Jury and the Defense of Insanity.American Sociological Review, 33
R. James (1959)
Jurors' Assessment of Criminal ResponsibilitySocial Problems, 7
D. Aaronson, R. Simon (1988)
The Insanity Defense: A Critical Assessment of Law and Policy in the Post-Hinckley Era
R. Arens, Dom Granfield, Jackwell Susman (1965)
Jurors, Jury Charges and InsanityCatholic University Law Review, 14
J. Luckey, J. Berman (1979)
Effects of a new commitment law on involuntary admissions and service utilization patternsLaw and Human Behavior, 3
K. Gerbasi, M. Zuckerman, H. Reis (1977)
Justice needs a new blindfold: A review of mock jury research.Psychological Bulletin, 84
C. Roberts, S. Golding, F. Fincham (1987)
Implicit theories of criminal responsibilityLaw and Human Behavior, 11
R. Arens (1967)
The Durham Rule in Action: Judicial Psychiatry and Psychiatric JusticeLaw & Society Review, 1
N. Finkel (1989)
The Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984: Much ado about nothingBehavioral Sciences & The Law, 7
R. Moran (1982)
Knowing Right From Wrong: The Insanity Defense of Daniel McNaughtan
N. Finkel, Raymond Shaw, Susan Bercaw, Juliann Koch (1985)
Insanity defenses: From the jurors' perspective.
H. Steadman, J. Braff (1983)
Defendants Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity
J. Pfeifer, J. Ogloff (1991)
Ambiguity and Guilt Determinations: A Modern Racism Perspective'Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21
P. Loeffelholz (1984)
Mentally Disordered Offenders: Perspectives From Law and Social ScienceAmerican Journal of Psychiatry, 141
D. Kagehiro (1990)
Defining the Standard of Proof in Jury InstructionsPsychological Science, 1
L. Teplin (1984)
Mental Health and Criminal Justice
G. Bermant, M. McGuire, W. mckinley, Chris Salo (1974)
The Logic of Simulation in Jury ResearchCriminal Justice and Behavior, 1
R. James (1959)
Status and Competence of JurorsAmerican Journal of Sociology, 64
W. Loh (1981)
Perspectives on Psychology and LawJournal of Applied Social Psychology, 11
A. Goldstein (1967)
The Insanity Defense
N. Finkel, S. Handel (1989)
How jurors construe “insanity”Law and Human Behavior, 13
Following the Hinckley acquittal, 17 states and the federal government made changes to the insanity defense, including revising the standard, reassigning the burden of proof, and altering the standard of proof. Two studies were conducted to determine whether the specific insanity standard (including the assignment of burden of proof and standard of proof) employed had a significant effect on mock jurors’ verdicts. Participants’ comprehension of insanity defense instructions was measured and the factors jurors used to decide whether to find the defendant not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) were also assessed. Participants’ comprehension of insanity defense standards was very low. When asked to identify the factors they considered important in determining whether to find a defendant NGRI, only three elements of insanity defense standards were identified as significant. The results may have important implications for policy decisions regarding the insanity defense.
Law and Human Behavior – American Psychological Association
Published: Oct 1, 1991
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.