Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:51:00.548Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

25 - Decisions Regarding Insanity

from Part III - Trial Phase Decision-Making

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 February 2024

By
Evelyn M. Maeder  and
Susan Yamamoto
Edited by
Monica K. Miller ,
Logan A. Yelderman ,
Matthew T. Huss  and
Jason A. Cantone
Monica K. Miller
Affiliation:
University of Nevada, Reno
Logan A. Yelderman
Affiliation:
Prairie View A & M University, Texas
Matthew T. Huss
Affiliation:
Creighton University, Omaha
Jason A. Cantone
Affiliation:
George Mason University, Virginia
Get access

Summary

This chapter reviews decision-making in insanity defense trials. The chapter begins with an overview of the variety of legal definitions of insanity in the United States, discussing how these rules provide parameters and shape (or fail to shape) insanity decisions. Various factors related to decision-making in insanity defense cases are discussed, including attitudes toward the insanity defense itself (and how these reflect myths about the insanity defense and its implications), prototypes of insanity, and individual differences of both jurors and defendants. The chapter examines misconceptions of mental disorder and how these might relate to decision-making in these cases and considers the role of decision-makers’ perceptions of punishment in this context. The chapter also reflects on the role of intersecting identities in insanity judgments, provides an overview and synthesis of the current body of research on legal decision-making in insanity cases, discusses limitations to the current literature, provides future directions, and considers legal and policy implications.

Keywords

insanitydecision-makingattitudes toward the insanity defenseinsanity defense mythspunishmentmental disorder
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Psychology and Legal Decision-Making , pp. 379 - 394
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2024

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Angermeyer, M. C., & Matschinger, H. (2003). The stigma of mental illness: Effects of labelling on public attitudes towards people with mental disorder. Acta PsychiatricaScandinavica, 108, 304–309. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0447.2003.00150.x.Google Scholar
Bloechl, A. L., Vitacco, M. J., Neumann, C. S., & Erickson, S. E. (2007). An empirical investigation of insanity defense attitudes: Exploring factors related to bias. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 30(2), 153–161. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2006.03.007.Google Scholar
Bray, R. M., & Kerr, N. L. (1982). Methodological considerations in the study of the psychology of the courtroom. In Kerr, N. L. & Bray, R. M. (Eds.), The psychology of the courtroom (pp. 287–323). Academic Press, Inc.Google Scholar
Breheney, C., Groscup, J., & Galietta, M. (2007). Gender matters in the insanity defense. Law and Psychology Review, 31, 93–124.Google Scholar
Chan, J. Y. N., Mak, W. W. S., & Law, L. S. C. (2009). Combining education and video-based contact to reduce stigma of mental illness: “The same or not the same” anti-stigma program for secondary schools in Hong Kong. Social Science & Medicine, 68, 1521–1526. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.02.016.Google Scholar
Corrigan, P. W., Larson, J., Sells, M., Nieseen, N., & Watson, A. C. (2007). Will filmed presentations of education and contact diminish mental illness stigma? Community Mental Health Journal, 42(2), 171–181. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10597-006–9061–8.Google Scholar
Crocker, C. B., & Kovera, M. B. (2010). The effects of rehabilitative voir dire on juror biasand decision making. Law and Human Behavior, 34(3), 212–226. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-009-9193-9.Google Scholar
Daftary-Kapur, T., Groscup, J. L., O’Connor, M., Coffaro, F., & Galietta, M. (2011). Measuring knowledge of the insanity defense: Scale construction and validation. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 29(1), 40–63. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.938.Google Scholar
Day, E. N., Edgren, K., & Eshelman, A. (2007). Measuring stigma toward mental illness: Development and application of the mental illness stigma scale. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37(10), 2191–2219. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00255.x.Google Scholar
Doerner, J. K., & Demuth, S. (2014). Gender and sentencing in the federal courts: Are women treated more leniently? Criminal Justice Policy Review, 25(2), 242–269. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403412466877.Google Scholar
Dressler, J. (2018). Understanding Criminal Law (8th ed.). Carolina Academic Press.Google Scholar
Dunn, K. F., Cowan, G., & Downs, D. (2006). Effects of sex and race of perpetrator and method of killing on outcome judgments in a mock filicide case. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36(10), 2395–2416. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0021-9029.2006.00109.x.Google Scholar
Eberhardt, J. L., Goff, P. A., Purdie, V. J., & Davies, P. G. (2004). Seeing Black: Race, crime and visual processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(6), 876–893. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.6.876.Google Scholar
Ellsworth, P., Bukaty, R., Cowan, C., & Thompson, W. (1984). The death-qualified jury and the defense of insanity. Law and Human Behavior, 8(1–2), 81–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01044352.Google Scholar
Faulstich, M. E. (1984). Effects upon social perceptions of the insanity plea. Psychological Reports, 55(1), 183–187. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1984.55.1.183.Google Scholar
Finkel, N. (1988). Insanity on Trial. Plenum Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-1665-7.Google Scholar
Finkel, N. (1989). The insanity defense reform act of 1984: Much ado about nothing. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 7(3), 403–419. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2370070309.Google Scholar
Finkel, N., & Handel, S. (1988). Jurors and insanity: Do test instructions instruct? Forensic Reports, 1, 65–79.Google Scholar
Finkel, N., & Handel, S. (1989). How jurors construe “insanity.” Law and Human Behavior, 13(1), 41–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01056162.Google Scholar
Finkel, N., Shaw, R., Bercaw, S., & Kock, J. (1985). Insanity defenses: From the jurors’ perspective. Law and Psychology Review, 9, 77–92.Google Scholar
Franklin, C. A., & Fearn, N. E. (2008). Gender, race, and formal court decision-making outcomes: Chivalry/paternalism, conflict theory or gender conflict? Journal of Criminal Justice, 36(3), 279–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2008.04.009.Google Scholar
Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (1986). The aversive form of racism. In Dovidio, J. F. & Gaertner, S. L. (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination, and racism (pp. 61–89). Academic Press.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Simon & Schuster Inc.Google Scholar
Grabe, M. E., Trager, K. D., Lear, M., Rauch, J. (2006) Gender in crime news: A case study test of the chivalry hypothesis. Mass Communication & Society 9(2), 137–163. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327825mcs0902_2.Google Scholar
Greene, J. D., Sommerville, R. B., Nystrom, L. E., Darley, J. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment. Science, 293(5537), 2105–2108. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1062872.Google Scholar
Grekin, P. M., Jemelka, R., & Trupin, E. W. (1994). Racial differences in the criminalization of the mentally ill. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry & the Law, 22(3), 411–420.Google Scholar
Gruhl, J., Welch, S., & Spohn, C. (1984). Women as criminal defendants: A test for paternalism. Political Research Quarterly, 37(3), 456–467. https://doi.org/10.1177/106591298403700308.Google Scholar
Hans, V. P. (1986). An analysis of public attitudes toward the insanity defense. Criminology, 4(2), 393–415. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1986.tb01502.x.Google Scholar
Hans, V., & Slater, D. (1984). “Plain crazy”: Lay definitions of legal insanity. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 7, 105–114.Google Scholar
Herzog, S., & Oreg, S. (2008). Chivalry and the moderating effect of ambivalent sexism: Individual differences in crime seriousness judgments. Law & Society Review, 42(1), 45–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5893.2008.00334.x.Google Scholar
Jäggi, L. J., Mezuk, B., Watkins, D. C., & Jackson, J. S. (2016). The relationship between trauma, arrest, and incarceration history among Black Americans. Society and Mental Health, 6(3), 187–206. https://doi.org/10.1177/2156869316641730.Google Scholar
Jeffrey, R., & Pasewark, R. (1983). Altering opinions about the insanity plea. The Journal of Psychiatry and Law, 11(1), 29–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/009318538301100.Google Scholar
Kahler v. Kansas – 140 S. Ct. 1021 (2020).Google Scholar
Kivisto, A. J., & Swan, S. A. (2011). Attitudes toward the insanity defense in capital cases: (Im)partiality from Witherspoon to Witt. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 11(4), 311–329. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228932.2011.562811.Google Scholar
Kruttschnitt, C., & Green, D. E. (1984). The sex-sanctioning issue: Is it history? American Sociological Review, 49(4), 541–551. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095467.Google Scholar
Kvaale, E. P., Gottdiener, W. H., & Haslam, N. (2013). Biogenetic explanations and stigma: A meta-analytic review of associations among laypeople. Social Science & Medicine, 96, 95–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.07.017.Google Scholar
Laufer, W. S. (1995). Review of M. L Perlin’s “The jurisprudence of the insanity defense.” Journal of Legal Medicine, 16, 453–459.Google Scholar
Leland v. Oregon, 343 US 790 (1952).Google Scholar
Loughman, A., & Haslam, N. (2018). Neuroscientific explanations and the stigma of mental disorder: A meta-analytic study. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 3, 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-018-0136-1.Google Scholar
Maeder, E. M., Yamamoto, S., & Fenwick, K. L. (2015). Educating Canadian jurors about the not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder defense. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 47(3), 226–235. https://doi.org/10.1037/cbs0000016.Google Scholar
Maeder, E. M., Yamamoto, S., & McLaughlin, K. M. (2020). The influence of defendant race and mental disorder type on mock juror decision-making in insanity trials. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 68, 101536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2019.101536.Google Scholar
Maeder, E. M., Yamamoto, S., & Zanella, L. (2016). Putting negative attitudes on the agenda? Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act publicity and juror decision-making. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 49(Pt A), 154–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2016.08.010.Google Scholar
Martin, J. K., Pescosolido, B. A., & Tuch, S. A. (2000). Of fear and loathing: The role of “disturbing behavior,” labels, and causal attributions in shaping public attitudes toward people with mental illness. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 41, 208–223. https://doi.org/10.2307/2676306.Google Scholar
McGlynn, R. P., Megas, J. C., & Benson, D. H. (1976). Sex and race as factors affecting the attribution of insanity in a murder trial. The Journal of Psychology Interdisciplinary and Applied, 93(1), 93–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1976.9921378.Google Scholar
Model Penal Code §4.01 (1) (2000).Google Scholar
Mossière, A., & Maeder, E. M. (2016). Juror decisionmaking in not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder trials: Effects of defendant gender and mental illness type. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 49, 47–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2016.05.008.Google Scholar
Nagel, I. H., & Hagen, J. (1983). Gender and crime: Offense patterns and criminal court sanctions. Crime and Justice, 4, 91–144. https://doi.org/10.1086/449087.Google Scholar
Nagel, I. H., & Johnson, B. L. (1994) The role of gender in a structured sentencing system: Equal treatment, policy choices, and the sentencing of female offenders under the United States sentencing guidelines. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 85(1), 181–221.Google Scholar
Ogloff, J. (1991). A comparison of insanity defense standards on juror decision making. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 509–531. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01650292.Google Scholar
Pasewark, R. A., Randolph, R. L., & Bieber, S. (1984). Insanity plea: Statutory language and trial procedures. The Journal of Psychiatry and Law, 12(3), 399–422. https://doi.org/10.1177/009318538401200307.Google Scholar
Pasewark, R. A., & Seidenzahl, D. (1979). Opinions concerning the insanity plea and criminality among mental patients. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online, 7(2), 199–202.Google Scholar
Perlin, M. L. (1994). The jurisprudence of the insanity defense. Carolina Academic Press.Google Scholar
Perlin, M. (1996). Myths, realities, and the political world: The anthropology of insanity defense attitudes. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 24, 5–26.Google Scholar
Perlin, M. L. (2017). The insanity defense: Nine myths that will not go away. In White, M. D. (Ed.), The insanity defense: Multidisciplinary views on its history, trends, and controversies (pp. 3–22). Praeger/ABC-CLIO.Google Scholar
Pinfold, V., Toulmin, H., Thornicroft, G., et al. (2003). Reducing psychiatric stigma and discrimination: Evaluation of educational interventions in UK secondary schools. British Journal of Psychiatry, 182(4), 342–346. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.182.4.342.Google Scholar
Poulson, R. L. (1990). Mock juror attribution of criminal responsibility: Effects of race and the guilty but mentally ill (GBMI) verdict option. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20(19), 1596–1611. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1990.tb01495.x.Google Scholar
Prins, S. J., (2014). Prevalence of mental illnesses in US state prisons: A systematic review. Psychiatric Services, 65(7), 862–872. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.201300166.Google Scholar
Queen v. M’Naghten. 8 Eng. Rep. 718 (1843).Google Scholar
Rendell, J. A., Huss, M. T., & Jensen, M. L. (2010). Expert testimony and the effects of a biological approach, psychopathy, and juror attitudes in cases of insanity. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 28(3), 411–425. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.913.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. H., & Williams, T. S. (2017). Mapping American criminal law variations across the fifty states: Ch 14 insanity defense. Faculty Scholarship at Penn Carey Law. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship/1718.Google Scholar
Rogers, J. L., Sack, W. H., Bloom, J. D., & Manson, S. M. (1983). Women in Oregon’s insanity defense system. The Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 11(4), 515–532. https://doi.org/10.1177/009318538301100407.Google Scholar
Rosch, E. (1988). Principles of categorization. In Collins, A. M., & Smith, E. E. (Eds.), Readings in cognitive science: A perspective from psychology and artificial intelligence (pp. 312–322). Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Roytman, K. (2020). Kahler v. Kansas: The end of the insanity defense? Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar, 15, 43–58.Google Scholar
Salerno, J. M., & Diamond, S. S. (2010). The promise of a cognitive perspective on jury deliberation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17(2), 174–179. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.17.2.174.Google Scholar
Schmetzer, A. D., Lafuze, J. E., & Jack, M. E. (2008). Overcoming stigma: Involving families in medical student and psychiatric residency education. Academic Psychiatry, 32(2), 127–131. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ap.32.2.127.Google Scholar
Schweitzer, N. J., & Saks, M. J. (2011). Neuroimage evidence and the insanity defense. Behavioral sciences and the Law, 29, 592–607. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.995.Google Scholar
Shannon v. United States, 114 S. Ct. 2419 (1994).Google Scholar
Silver, E., Cirincione, C., & Steadman, H. J. (1994). Demythologizing inaccurate perceptions of the insanity defense. Law and Human Behavior, 18(1), 63–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01499144.Google Scholar
Skeem, J., & Golding, S. (2001). Describing jurors’ personal conceptions of insanity and their relationship to case judgments. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7(3), 561–621. https://doi.org/10.1037//1076-8971.7.3.561.Google Scholar
Skeem, J. L., Louden, J. E., & Evans, J. (2004). Venireperson’s attitudes toward the insanity defense: Developing, refining, and validating a scale. Law and Human Behavior, 28(6), 623–648. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-004-0487-7.Google Scholar
Sloat, L. M., & Frierson, R. L. (2005). Juror knowledge and attitudes regarding mental illness verdicts. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 33, 208–213.Google Scholar
Sygel, K., Sturup, J., Fors, U., et al. (2017). The effect of gender on the outcome of forensic psychiatric assessment in Sweden: A case vignette study. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 27(2), 124–135. https://doi.org/10.1002/cbm.1987.Google Scholar
Tate, B., & Yelderman, L. A. (2022). Examining the effect of religiosity, moral disengagement, personal attribution, comprehension and proximity on juror decision making regarding insanity pleas. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 29(6), 809–831. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2021.1982789.Google Scholar
United States v. Neavill, 868, F.2d 1000 (1989).Google Scholar
Wainwright v. Witt, 469 US 412 (1985).Google Scholar
Weiner, B., Graham, S., & Reyna, C. (1997). An attributional examination of retributive versus utilitarian philosophies of punishment. Social Justice Research, 10, 431–452. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02683293.Google Scholar
Weiner, B., Perry, R. P., & Magnusson, J. (1988). An attributional analysis of reactions to stigmas. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(5), 738–748. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.55.5.738.Google Scholar
Wheatman, S. R., & Shaffer, D. R. (2001). On finding for defendants who plead insanity: The crucial impact of dispositional instructions and opportunity to deliberate. Law and Human Behavior, 25(2), 167–183. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005645414992.Google Scholar
Whittemore, K. E. & Ogloff, J. R. (1995). Factors that influence jury decision making. Law and Human Behavior, 19(3), 283–303. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01501661.Google Scholar
Witherspoon v. Illinois – 391 US 510, 88 S. Ct. 1770 (1968).Google Scholar
Wood, E. F., Trescher, S. A., Miller, M. K., & McDermott, C. M. (2018). Individual differences relate to support for insanity and postpartum depression legal defenses: The mediating role of moral disengagement. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 25, 219–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2017.1351905.Google Scholar
Yamamoto, S., & Maeder, E. M. (2021). What’s in the box? Punishment and insanity in the Canadian jury deliberation room. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.689128.Google Scholar
Yamamoto, S., Maeder, E. M., & Fenwick, K. L. (2017). Criminal responsibility in Canada: Mental disorder stigma education and the insanity defense. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 16(4), 313–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2017.1391357.Google Scholar
Yelderman, L. A. (2018). Cognitive rigidity explains the relationship between religious fundamentalism and insanity defence attitudes. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 21(7), 686–697. https://doi.org/10.1080/13674676.2018.1551340.Google Scholar
Yelderman, L. A., & Miller, M. K. (2016). Religious fundamentalism and attitudes toward the insanity defense: The mediating roles of criminal attributions and attitudes toward the mentally ill. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 23(6), 872–884. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2016.1160005.Google Scholar
Yelderman, L. A., & Miller, M. K. (2017). Religious fundamentalism, religiosity, and priming: Effects on attitudes, perceptions, and mock jurors’ decisions in an insanity defense case. Psychology, Crime & Law, 23(2), 147–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2016.1239097.Google Scholar
Yourstone, J., Lindholm, T., Grann, M., & Svenson, O. (2008). Evidence of gender bias in legal insanity evaluations: A case vignette study of clinicians, judges and students. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry, 62(4), 273–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/08039480801963135.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×