NGRI Revisited: Venirepersons' Attitudes Toward the Insanity Defense1

Brooke M. Butler

23 citations0/0 files storedJournal of Applied Social Psychology

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Jury Decision Making Processes Criminal Law and Policy Psychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending

Abstract

Three hundred venirepersons from the 12th Judicial Circuit in Sarasota, Florida completed the following booklet of stimulus materials: one question measuring participants' level of support for insanity defense; a 16‐item measure assessing participants' attitudes toward the myths associated with the insanity defense, the legal definitions of insanity, and mental illness; a case scenario; verdict preference; and standard demographic questions. Level of support for the insanity defense was significantly related to participants' attitudes toward legal standards of insanity, mental illness, and the myths associated with the insanity defense. In addition, results indicated that level of support for the insanity defense, age, educational level, occupation, type of prior jury service, and political views were significantly related to verdict preference. Notably, three factors that have been found to impact verdict preference in previous research failed to do so in the current study: participants' experience with psychological disorders; participants' exposure to psychotropic medications; and participants' experience with psychologists or psychiatrists. The findings both replicate and extend earlier findings by suggesting that attitudes toward the insanity defense are more complex than previously imagined.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 23 citations exist upstream.

References

1989Psychological Evaluations for the Courts: A Handbook for Mental Health Professionals and Lawyers 1983Making jury instructions understandable 1995Comprehensibility of approved jury instructions in capital murder cases.1984The death-qualified jury and the defense of insanity.1991The social construction of criminal responsibility and insanity.1989How jurors construe "insanity."1992Jury selection in insanity defense cases 1992Comprehension of judges' instructions in the penalty phase of a capital trial: Focus on mitigating circumstances.

Cited by

2009Measuring Attitudes toward the Insanity Defense in Venirepersons: Refining the IDA-R in the Evaluation of Juror Bias 2010Measuring knowledge of the insanity defense: Scale construction and validation 2019The influence of defendant race and mental disorder type on mock juror decision-making in insanity trials 2011Attitudes Toward the Insanity Defense in Capital Cases: (Im)partiality fromWitherspoontoWitt 2015Determining criminal responsibility: How relevant are insight and personal attitudes to mock jurors?

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.