Unpacking insanity defence standards: An experimental study of rationality and control tests in criminal law

Abstract

The present study investigated the impact of different legal standards on mock juror decisions concerning whether a defendant was guilty or not guilty by reason of insanity. Undergraduate students (N = 477) read a simulated case summary involving a murder case and were asked to make an insanity determination. The cases differed in terms of the condition of the defendant (rationality deficit or control deficit) and the legal standard given to the jurors to make the determination (Model Penal Code, McNaughten or McNaughten plus a separate control determination). The effects of these variables on the insanity determination were investigated. Jurors also completed questionnaires measuring individualism and hierarchy attitudes and perceptions of facts in the case. Results indicate that under current insanity standards jurors do not distinguish between defendants with rationality deficits and defendants with control deficits regardless of whether the legal standard requires them to do so. Even defendants who lacked control were found guilty at equal rates under a legal standard excusing rationality deficits only and a legal standard excluding control and rationality deficits. This was improved by adding a control test as a partial defence, to be determined after a rationality determination. Implications for the insanity defence in the Criminal Justice System are discussed.

Differentiation and Meaning of Affects and Other Emotional States of a Person

“…Neurological evidence now provides in sight into compulsion and lack of impulse control and highlights not only the neurological basis of lack of control, but also its neuroanatomical distinctiveness from lack of rationalit [12].…”

Overall Thinking and System Design of Environmental Criminal Law in the Context of Risk Society

“…e objective dimension of the evolution of the concept of environmental law, according to Helm and others, represents the development direction of international environmental law, indicating that this new legal department will take the lead in the world's inevitable trend of integration [14]. Brady and others believe that investigating state responsibility for international environmental damage is impossible and that the problem should be solved by privatizing international environmental damage liability [15].…”

El error judicial en el uso de la prisión preventiva: Personas en prisión que nunca llegan a ser condenadas.

“…Por su parte, la prevalencia de las personas con trastorno mental en prisión provisional es superior incluso a la de la población penitenciaria, en la que ya se aprecia una sobrerrepresentación de enfermos mentales respecto a la población normal (Ericson y Vinson, 2010). Las necesidades de esta población difícilmente se pueden cubrir en prisión, y la peligrosidad a la que muchas veces se alude en la sala de justicia, no está contrastada científicamente (Helm, Ceci, y Burd, 2016;Raghunathan, 2012). Por ello, se hace necesario analizar cada caso en particular, y que el juez no decrete una prisión provisional por el mero hecho de estar ante un acusado con un trastorno mental (Schönteich, 2014).…”