Sanism, social science, and the development of mental disability law jurisprudence

Abstract

This article examines the way that "sanist" attitudes (attitudes driven by the same kind of irrational, unconscious and bias-driven stereotypes exhibited in racist and sexist decisionmaking) lead to "pretextual" decisions (in which dishonest testimony is either explicitly or implicitly accepted) in mental disability law jurisprudence. In conjunction with these sanist ends, social science data is teleologically employed by legal decisionmakers, so that it is privileged when it supports a conclusion that the fact-finder wishes to reach but subordinated when it questions such a conclusion. The article examines recent Supreme Court cases in an effort to determine the extent of domination of such sanist behavior, and concludes by offering several prescriptions to scholars and policymakers so as to best avoid sanism's pernicious power.

Tough on Crime or Beating the System

“…This is consistent with past research including female NGRI acquittees (Breheney, Groscup, & Galietta, 2007;Hodgins, Hebert, & Baraldi, 1986). In 1993, Perlin and Dorfman (1993) contended that legal decision making can be, among other attributes, sexist when deciding mental health related cases. The current result may support that contention.…”

Medication state at the time of the offense: Medication noncompliance, insight and criminal responsibility

“…This study implemented a mock jury paradigm to investigate one of the most stigmatized and misunderstood defenses in criminal proceedings – the insanity defense (Perlin, , , ; Perlin & Dorfman, ; Skeem & Golding, ; Vidmar & Hans, ). Previous research has suggested that insanity defense bias heavily influences decision‐making (Louden & Skeem, ; Skeem et al, ; Skeem & Golding, ), and that jurisdictional variations in legal definitions and legal standards regarding NGRI carry little predictive influence on outcomes (Finkel & Slobogin, ; Ogloff, ).…”

“…This study implemented a mock jury paradigm to investigate one of the most stigmatized and misunderstood defenses in criminal proceedingsthe insanity defense (Perlin, 1994(Perlin, , 1996(Perlin, , 2000Perlin & Dorfman, 1993;Skeem & Golding, 2001;Vidmar & Hans, 2007). Previous research has suggested that insanity defense bias heavily influences decision-making (Louden & Skeem, 2007;Skeem et al, 2004;Skeem & Golding, 2001), and that jurisdictional variations in legal definitions and legal standards regarding NGRI carry little predictive influence on outcomes (Finkel & Slobogin, 1995;Ogloff, 1991 The various experimentally constructed interactions of medication compliance, insight, and expert testimony elaboration failed to yield statistically significant predictions regarding verdict and meta-responsibility, with one exception.…”

‘The witness who saw, /he left little doubt’: a comparative consideration of expert testimony in mental disability law cases in common and civil law systems

“…By teleological, we refer to outcome-determinative reasoning; social science that enables judges to satisfy predetermined positions are privileged, whilst data that would require judges to question such ends are rejected or subordinated (see Perlin, 1993Perlin, , 1993Perlin, -1994aPerlin & Dorfman, 1993). In other words, 'social science data is used and misused for teleological ends .…”