Attitudes Toward the Insanity Defense in Capital Cases: (Im)partiality fromWitherspoontoWitt

Abstract

Changes in the death qualification process suggest an increasing probability that jurors in capital cases will reject an insanity defense. The present study of 312 college undergraduates compares demographics and attitudes of death-qualified participants with those of their excludable counterparts, by varying standards for exclusion. When demographics were considered together, only religion predicted bias against the insanity defense, which was higher in those who identified with some form of Christianity. Further, religious fundamentalism, Christian orthodoxy, sociopolitical conservatism, and pro-prosecution bias were associated with stronger negative attitudes against the insanity defense. Results also support the contention that seating a death-qualified jury under either the Witherspoon or Witt standards increases bias against the insanity defense, although the consideration of automatic–death penalty jurors eliminates this effect.

Cite this work

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

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 15 citations exist upstream.

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