Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Loading next page...
/lp/american-psychological-association/community-standards-of-criminal-liability-and-the-insanity-defense-ZQDKz3vRRX
References (28)
-
N. Finkel (1991)
The insanity defenseLaw and Human Behavior, 15
-
P. Robinson (1984)
Criminal Law Defenses -
J. Ogloff (1991)
A comparison of insanity defense standards on juror decision makingLaw and Human Behavior, 15
-
M. Norusis (1990)
SPSS advanced statistics user's guide -
S. Golding, Ronald Roesch (1987)
The assessment of criminal responsibility: A historical approach to a current controversy. -
V. Smith (1991)
Prototypes in the courtroom: Lay representations of legal concepts.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61
-
D. Hermann (1983)
The insanity defense: Philosophical, historical, and legal perspectives -
I. Weiner, A. Hess (2005)
Handbook of forensic psychology. -
V. Smith (1993)
When prior knowledge and law collideLaw and Human Behavior, 17
-
C. Roberts, S. Golding (1991)
The social construction of criminal responsibility and insanityLaw and Human Behavior, 15
-
E. Silver, C. Cirincione, H. Steadman (1994)
Demythologizing inaccurate perceptions of the insanity defenseLaw and Human Behavior, 18
-
V. Hans (1986)
An Analysis of Public Attitudes Toward the Insanity DefenseCriminology, 24
-
R. Stubblefield (1966)
Behavioral sciences and the law.The American journal of orthopsychiatry, 36 5
-
V. Hans, D. Slater, And Slater
Scholarship@cornell Law: a Digital Repository "plain Crazy:" Lay Definitions of Legal Insanity Recommended Citation -
R. Pasewark, D. Seidenzahl (1979)
Opinions concerning the insanity plea and criminality among mental patients.The Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 7 2
-
R. Nisbett, T. Wilson (1977)
Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes.Psychological Review, 84
-
T. Scheff, R. Simon (1968)
The Jury and the Defense of Insanity.American Sociological Review, 33
-
N. Finkel, C. Slobogin (1995)
Insanity, justification, and culpability toward a unifying schemaLaw and Human Behavior, 19
-
C. Roberts, S. Golding, F. Fincham (1987)
Implicit theories of criminal responsibilityLaw and Human Behavior, 11
-
N. Finkel (1989)
The Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984: Much ado about nothingBehavioral Sciences & The Law, 7
-
N. Finkel (1990)
De facto departures from insanity instructionsLaw and Human Behavior, 14
-
R. LaPiere (1934)
Attitudes vs Actions. 1934.International journal of epidemiology, 39 1
-
C. Roberts, Erica Sargent, Anthony Chan (1993)
Verdict selection processes in insanity casesLaw and Human Behavior, 17
-
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 -
T. Tyler (2021)
Why People Obey the Law -
P. Loeffelholz (1984)
Mentally Disordered Offenders: Perspectives From Law and Social ScienceAmerican Journal of Psychiatry, 141
-
N. Finkel, S. Handel (1989)
How jurors construe “insanity”Law and Human Behavior, 13
- Publisher
- American Psychological Association
- Copyright
- Copyright © 1995 American Psychological Association
- ISSN
- 0147-7307
- eISSN
- 1573-661X
- DOI
- 10.1007/BF01499336
- Publisher site
- See Article on Publisher Site
Abstract
Two experiments (N = 71) compare lay standards of insanity to standards incorporated in American legal codes. In Experiment 1, case vignettes provided only legally relevant information about defendants’ degrees of impairment in cognition or in behavioral control. Respondents’ judgments of criminal liability or not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) reflected an exculpatory standard of substantial impairment in both cognition and control. In Experiment 2, case vignettes provided realistic information about defendants’ psychiatric diagnoses; respondents had to infer levels of cognitive and control impairment. Results showed that respondents made highly idiosyncratic inferences based on diagnostic categories, but once made, these inferences predicted NGRI judgments. Implications of the concordance between laypeople’s rules for assigning NGRI verdicts and the rules used in American legal codes are discussed.
Journal
Law and Human Behavior – American Psychological Association
Published: Oct 1, 1995