Opinion formation in evaluating sanity at the time of the offense: an examination of 5175 pre‐trial evaluations

Self Cite

103

Evaluations of competence to stand trial (CST) are the most common type of criminal forensic evaluation conducted, and courts tend to defer to clinician opinions regarding a defendant's competence. Thus, it is important to study the ways in which clinicians arrive at opinions regarding adjudicative competence and the data they consider in forming their opinions. We reviewed 8,416 evaluations conducted by forensic evaluators in Virginia over a 12 year period, and examined (a) the clinical, demographic, and criminal characteristics of a defendant as related to opinions regarding competence, predicted restorability, and impairment on "prongs" of the Dusky standard, (b) process and outcome differences in evaluations conducted by psychiatrists versus psychologists and inpatient versus outpatient evaluators, and (c) the consistency of incompetence base rates over a 10 year period. Overall, clinicians opined that 19% of defendants were incompetent and considered 23% of these unlikely to be restored to competence. Not surprisingly, psychotic and organic/intellectual disorders were most strongly associated with findings of incompetence. However, there were some notable differences between evaluations by psychologists versus psychiatrists and between evaluations conducted in inpatient versus outpatient settings.

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 72%

Opinion formation in evaluating the adjudicative competence and restorability of criminal defendants: a review of 8,000 evaluations

Warren¹,

Murrie²,

Stejskal³

et al. 2006

Self Cite

103

“…Additionally, Warren et al (2004) found a negative relation between Axis II personality disorders and opinions supportive of insanity: subjects with a personality disorder were less likely to be found insane than subjects without a personality disorder. In contrast, Janofsky, Dunn, Roskes, Briskin, & Rudolph (1996) did not find any relationship between diagnosis and verdicts of insanity.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…The few empirical studies that have addressed factors involved in assessing criminal responsibility consistently show that experts' opinions regarding criminal responsibility and verdicts of insanity are related to Axis I psychiatric diagnoses; notably, subjects with psychotic disorders were more likely to be found insane than subjects without psychotic symptoms (Lymburner & Roesch, 1999;Warren, Murrie, Chauhan, Dietz, & Morris, 2004;Rice & Harris, 1990;Cochrane, Grisso, & Frederick, 2001). Additionally, Warren et al (2004) found a negative relation between Axis II personality disorders and opinions supportive of insanity: subjects with a personality disorder were less likely to be found insane than subjects without a personality disorder.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Besides diagnoses, age and gender of the defendant (Folino & Urrutia, 2001;Rice & Harris, 1990;Warren et al, 2004), the number of prior convictions and the number of prior arrests (Folino & Urrutia, 2001;Lymburner & Roesch, 1999;Rice & Harris, 1990) have been found to be associated with criminal responsibility. The largest study among more than 4000 subjects, however, did not find a relationship between criminal responsibility and prior convictions (Warren et al, 2004).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Factors associated with experts' opinions regarding criminal responsibility in The Netherlands

Barendregt

E²,

Nijman³

et al. 2008

In many jurisdictions, offenders need to have freely chosen to commit their crimes in order to be punishable. A mental defect or disorder may be a reason for diminished or total absence of criminal responsibility and may remove culpability. This study aims to provide an empirically based understanding of the factors on which experts base their judgements concerning criminal responsibility. Clinical, demographic and crime related variables, as well as MMPI-2 profiles, were collected from final reports concerning defendants of serious crime submitted to the observation clinic of the Dutch Ministry of Justice for a criminal responsibility assessment. Criminal responsibility was expressed along a five-point scale corresponding to the Dutch legal practice. Results showed that several variables contributed independently to experts' opinions regarding criminal responsibility: diagnosis (Axis I and II), cultural background, type of weapon used in committing the crime, and whether the defendant committed the crime alone or with others. In contract to jurisdictions involving a sane/insane dichotomy, the Dutch five-point scale of criminal responsibility revealed that Axis II personality disorders turned out to be mostly associated with a diminished responsibility. MMPI-2 scores also turned out to have a small contribution to experts' opinions on criminal responsibility, independently of mere diagnostic variables. These results suggest that experts base their judgements not only on the presence or absence of mental disorders, but also on cultural and crime related characteristics, as well as dimensional information about the defendant's personality and symptomatology.

“…NGRI acquittees tend to have a diagnosis of psychosis and not personality disorder (Rice & Harris, 1990). Between 60 and 77% of all NGRI acquittees are diagnosed with a psychosis and at least 10% of these individuals have a diagnosis of organic psychosis, indicating a possible biological origin to their disorder (Cochrane, Grisso, & Frederick, 2001;Roberts et al, 1987;Warren, Murrie, Chauhan, Dietz, & Morris, 2004). In contrast, a diagnosis of a personality disorder appears to impede a successful NGRI verdict: only 9-19% of those who are successful while pleading NGRI are diagnosed with a personality disorder (Rogers & Zimbarg, 1987;Zonana, Wells, Getz, & Buchanan, 1990).…”

Section: How Jurors Perceive Scientific Evidencementioning

confidence: 98%

The effects of neuroimaging and brain injury on insanity defenses

Gurley

Marcus²

2008

100

Although neurological evidence is used with increasing frequency in criminal trials, there is limited research examining the effects that this evidence has on juror decision-making in insanity trials. Participants (396) were presented with a case summary and psychological testimony and asked to render either a verdict of guilty or not guilty by reason of insanity in a 2 (psychosis or psychopathy) x (presence or absence of an MRI indicating a brain lesion) x (presence or absence of testimony describing a car accident that caused injury to the brain) factorial design. Defendants diagnosed with a psychotic disorder, defendants who could demonstrate the existence of a brain lesion via MRI, and defendants who had a history of brain injury were more likely to be found not guilty by reason of insanity than those defendants who did not present any neurological testimony. Participants who reported they were more influenced by the psychological and neurological testimony were almost six times more likely to render a verdict of NGRI than those participants who reported that the psychological and neurological testimony and evidence did not influence their decision regarding verdict.