skip navigation
National Criminal Justice Reference Service
Login | Subscribe/Register | Manage Account | Shopping Cartshopping cart icon | Help | Contact Us | Home     
National Criminal Justice Reference Service
  Advanced Search
Search Help
     
| | | | |
place holder
Administered by the Office of Justice Programs U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Seal National Criminal Justice Reference Service National Criminal Justice Reference Service Office of Justice Programs Seal National Criminal Justice Reference Service
Topics
A-Z Topics
Corrections
Courts
Crime
Crime Prevention
Drugs
Justice System
Juvenile Justice
Law Enforcement
Victims
Left Nav Bottom Line
Home / NCJRS Abstract

Publications
 

NCJRS Abstract


The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Library collection.
To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the NCJRS Abstracts Database.

How to Obtain Documents
 
NCJ Number: NCJ 117127  
Title: How Jurors Construe 'Insanity'
Journal: Law and Human Behavior  Volume:13  Issue:1  Dated:(1989)  Pages:41-59
Author(s): N J Finkel ; S F Handel
Publication Date: 1989
Pages: 19
Type: Applied research
Origin: United States
Language: English
Annotation: This study tests the criticism that jurors are simplistic and biased in deciding insanity cases.
Abstract: Historically and currently, jurors who have rendered verdicts in insanity cases have themselves been criticized and maligned - accused of being simplistic and biased, of lacking understanding and of disregarding or nullifying the judge's instructions. To determine if the critics are right, 263 mock jurors were asked to decide four insanity cases without instructions, using their own best judgment, and to identify the determinative facts for them along with the meaning of those facts. Those determinative factors were then categorized, using a seven construct scheme for NGRI and guilty verdicts. The NGRI factors were as follows: incapacity, impaired awareness and perceptions, distorted thinking, could not control impulses and actions, nonculpable actions, no evil motive, and others at fault. The guilty factors were as follows: capacity, unimpaired awareness and perceptions, clear thinking, could control impulses and actions, culpable actions, premeditation or malice, and others not responsible. The results rebut the critics' view that jurors construe insanity cases in simplistic, irrelevant, and indiscriminative ways; rather, the results show that mock jurors' constructs of insanity are complex, relevant, and discriminative. Furthermore, the jurors' lay constructs of insanity are more complex than the legal constructs of insanity. It seems the 'simplism' lies not with the jurors but with the insanity tests. 35 references. (Author abstract modified)
Main Term(s): Jury decisionmaking
Index Term(s): Insanity defense ; Jury instructions ; Verdicts
 
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=117127

* A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's web site is provided.


Contact Us | Feedback | Site Map
Freedom of Information Act | Privacy Statement | Legal Policies and Disclaimers | USA.gov

U.S. Department of Justice | Office of Justice Programs | Office of National Drug Control Policy

place holder