Jury and the Defense of Insanity

• NCJ Number: 177100
• Author(s): Rita J. Simon
• Date Published: 1999
• Length: 283 pages
• Sponsoring Agency: Ford Foundation; National Institute of Mental Health
• Sale Source: Transaction Publishers
• Publication Format: Book (Softbound)
• Publication Type: Report (Study/Research)
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

As part of their regular jury duty, more than 1,000 jurors participated in two experimental trials in which the insanity defense was raised; topics examined include the level of juror motivation and competence, understanding of and compliance with jury instructions, juror understanding of expert testimony, and the extent to which jurors' backgrounds and experiences influenced their decisions.

Abstract

The first part of the book covers the study's background and method. Chapter 1 briefly reviews the origins and history of the insanity defense in English and American courts. It traces the criteria of criminal responsibility from the pre-M'Naghten era to the adoption of the Durham formula. Chapter 2 describes the method and the research design. The second part of the book describes the impact of the major experimental variables on the jurors' verdicts. The chapters report on juries' reactions to the alternative rules of law, the juries' understanding and evaluation of expert psychiatric testimony, and the juries' reactions to information about commitment. The third part describes the influence of social status and attitudes on the jurors' decisions. The chapters compare the reactions of various types of jurors; and jurors' attitudes toward mental illness, psychiatry, and other related topics are compared with verdicts. The fourth part focuses on the juries' deliberations and discusses the major issues that determine a jury's decision. The fifth and final part of the book provides a view of the future from two perspectives: the vantage point of the jury and the perspective of the court. One of the most significant study findings was the failure of the "model" and "typical" versions of expert testimony to produce differences in verdicts. The "model" testimony was drafted in consultation with psychiatrists who are critical of the existing procedure and who have extensive courtroom experience. The "model" testimony provided a comprehensive picture of the defendant's medical history and current symptoms while complying with the adversary system. Appended deliberation of one of the juries, 63 tables, and a 200-item bibliography