Insanity defense: Shifting the burden of proof

Pasewark, Richard A.; Parnell, Barbara; Rock, Jane

doi:10.1007/bf02811135

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Ogloff (1991), in his comprehensive analogue study, found that mock jurors did not assign significantly different verdicts given different burdens and standards of proof. In a naturalistic study in Hawaii, Pasewark, Parnell, and Rock (1994) found that shifting the burden of persuasion from the prosecution to the defendant did not reduce the frequency or success rate of the insanity plea. However, Steadman et al (1993, Chapter 5) conducted a similar study in Georgia and New York, which shifted the burden of persuasion to the defendant and the standard of proof to “preponderance of the evidence.” Both states showed a significant decrease in the rate of insanity pleas.…”

Section: “Tinkering” With the Insanity Defense: Procedural Reformsmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Ogloff (1991), in his comprehensive analogue study, found that mock jurors did not assign significantly different verdicts given different burdens and standards of proof. In a naturalistic study in Hawaii, Pasewark, Parnell, and Rock (1994) found that shifting the burden of persuasion from the prosecution to the defendant 11Other legal standards of proof are less restrictive and include "clear and convincing evidence" and "preponderance of the evidence," which is the least restrictive. 12See Leland v. Oregon (1952).…”

Section: Changing the Burden Of Persuasion And/or The Standard Of Proofmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Empirical research on the insanity defense and attempted reforms: Evidence toward informed policy.

Borum¹,

Fulero²

1999

Law and Human Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper addresses some common questions about the insanity defense and issues raised by commonly proposed "reforms." The first section begins with a brief description of the insanity defense and the reasons for its existence in the law. It then examines some of the popular myths and public misperceptions surrounding the insanity defense. The next three sections discuss proposed "reforms" and the empirical research that addresses their effect. These reforms, including various procedural changes in definitions, burden of proof, and expert testimony, the institution of a guilty but mentally ill verdict, and the abolition of the insanity defense itself, are reviewed, along with relevant research findings and policy issues. Finally, the development of sound conditional release programs for criminal defendants found not guilty by reason of insanity is proposed as a reform option which could serve the objectives of enhancing public safety and access to appropriate treatment while continuing to meet the objectives of the insanity defense within criminal jurisprudence.Virtually all of us can recount the details of a well-publicized insanity defense case in our home state. For example, on January 26, 1995, a 26-year-old law student named Wendell Williamson armed himself with a rifle he took from his father's house. He then walked through the streets of a college town in North Carolina shooting at people in his path. By the end of this incident, two people were dead

show abstract

Section: “Tinkering” With the Insanity Defense: Procedural Reformsmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Ogloff (1991), in his comprehensive analogue study, found that mock jurors did not assign significantly different verdicts given different burdens and standards of proof. In a naturalistic study in Hawaii, Pasewark, Parnell, and Rock (1994) found that shifting the burden of persuasion from the prosecution to the defendant 11Other legal standards of proof are less restrictive and include "clear and convincing evidence" and "preponderance of the evidence," which is the least restrictive. 12See Leland v. Oregon (1952).…”

Section: Changing the Burden Of Persuasion And/or The Standard Of Proofmentioning

confidence: 99%

Empirical research on the insanity defense and attempted reforms: Evidence toward informed policy.

Borum¹,

Fulero²

1999

Law and Human Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In Hawaii, Pasewark, Parnell and Rock (1994) found no significant change in the frequency and success of the insanity defense when the burden of proof was transferred from the prosecution to the defendant. In Hawaii, Pasewark, Parnell and Rock (1994) found no significant change in the frequency and success of the insanity defense when the burden of proof was transferred from the prosecution to the defendant.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 89%

Use of the insanity defense: A survey of attorneys in wyoming

Ph.D.

McGinley

1995

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Attorneys in the State of Wyoming were surveyed to determine their reported use of the insanity defense during the preceding 5 years. They were asked about the success, defined as “benefit to the defendant,” of the insanity defense at various stages that occur before trial. The attorneys reported that the insanity defense is used throughout the various stages preceding trial, with more use and benefit to the defendant being reported than previously suggested. This was particularly true for the earlier stages in the criminal justice process. The attorneys were also asked various attitude questions related to the insanity defense. Defense lawyers were more in from of the insanity defense and expressed attitudes that supported the insanity defense while prosecuting attorneys were relatively more opposed to the insanity defense and expressed attitudes consistent with this view.

show abstract

“…Ogloff, (1991), in his comprehensive analogue study, found that mock jurors did not assign significantly different verdicts given different burdens and standards of proof. In a naturalistic study in Hawaii, Pasewark, Parnell, and Rock (1994) found that shifting the burden of persuasion from the prosecution to the defendant did not reduce the frequency or success rate of the insanity plea. However, Steadman et al (1993, Chapter 5) conducted a similar study in Georgia and New York, which shifted the burden of persuasion to the defendant and the standard of proof to “preponderance of the evidence.” Both states showed a significant decrease in the rate of insanity pleas.…”

Section: “Tinkering” With the Insanity Defense: Procedural Reformsmentioning

confidence: 97%

"Empirical research on the insanity defense and attempted reforms: Evidence toward informed policy": Erratum.

Borum¹,

Fulero²

1999

Law and Human Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Insanity defense: Shifting the burden of proof

Cited by 4 publications

References 8 publications

Empirical research on the insanity defense and attempted reforms: Evidence toward informed policy.

Empirical research on the insanity defense and attempted reforms: Evidence toward informed policy.

Use of the insanity defense: A survey of attorneys in wyoming

"Empirical research on the insanity defense and attempted reforms: Evidence toward informed policy": Erratum.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About