Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

A Comparison of Insanity Defense Standards on Juror Decision Making

A Comparison of Insanity Defense Standards on Juror Decision Making 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. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Law and Human Behavior American Psychological Association

A Comparison of Insanity Defense Standards on Juror Decision Making

Law and Human Behavior , Volume 15 (5): 23 – Oct 1, 1991

Loading next page...
 
/lp/american-psychological-association/a-comparison-of-insanity-defense-standards-on-juror-decision-making-7SZEL0uRzZ

References (38)

Publisher
American Psychological Association
Copyright
Copyright © 1991 American Psychological Association
ISSN
0147-7307
eISSN
1573-661X
DOI
10.1007/BF01650292
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

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.

Journal

Law and Human BehaviorAmerican Psychological Association

Published: Oct 1, 1991

There are no references for this article.