NCJ Number
117127
Journal
Law and Human Behavior Volume: 13 Issue: 1 Dated: (1989) Pages: 41-59
Date Published
1989
Length
19 pages
Annotation
This study tests the criticism that jurors are simplistic and biased in deciding insanity cases.
Abstract
Historically and currently, jurors who have rendered verdicts in insanity cases have themselves been criticized and maligned - accused of being simplistic and biased, of lacking understanding and of disregarding or nullifying the judge's instructions. To determine if the critics are right, 263 mock jurors were asked to decide four insanity cases without instructions, using their own best judgment, and to identify the determinative facts for them along with the meaning of those facts. Those determinative factors were then categorized, using a seven construct scheme for NGRI and guilty verdicts. The NGRI factors were as follows: incapacity, impaired awareness and perceptions, distorted thinking, could not control impulses and actions, nonculpable actions, no evil motive, and others at fault. The guilty factors were as follows: capacity, unimpaired awareness and perceptions, clear thinking, could control impulses and actions, culpable actions, premeditation or malice, and others not responsible. The results rebut the critics' view that jurors construe insanity cases in simplistic, irrelevant, and indiscriminative ways; rather, the results show that mock jurors' constructs of insanity are complex, relevant, and discriminative. Furthermore, the jurors' lay constructs of insanity are more complex than the legal constructs of insanity. It seems the 'simplism' lies not with the jurors but with the insanity tests. 35 references. (Author abstract modified)