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.
KEYWORDS insanity defense, death qualification, juror biasThe public outrage after John Hinckley Jr.'s 1982 acquittal by reason of insanity for attempting to assassinate then-President Ronald Reagan served as an impetus for the Insanity Defense Reform Act (IDRA) of 1984. Among the changes encompassed in these reforms, the volitional prong of the insanity test was eliminated in many jurisdictions in favor of the more stringent cognitive prong requiring that a defendant prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that he did not to know the nature and quality of the act he or she was doing or, if he or she did know it, that he or she did not know