Decision making and examiner bias in forensic expert recommendations for not guilty by reason of insanity.
Law and Human Behavior1989Vol. 13(1), pp. 79–87
Citations Over Time
Abstract
Source of nomination (prosecution, defense, judge) was varied in a fictional not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) case distributed to 180 community forensic evaluators in a state employing theM'Naghten rule. Differences among examiners by appointment for the final NGRI judgment was not significant; interrater reliability for psychopathological symptomatology was .73. Discriminant analysis revealed significant differences in the decision-making process between evaluators recommending sanity and those endorsing insanity, as well as between psychiatrists and psychologists.
Related Papers
- → Insanity Defense: Past, Present, and Future(2015)38 cited
- → Law & Psychiatry: Imposed Insanity Defenses and Political Crimes(2013)4 cited
- Time Is Right to Revise the Texas Insanity Defense: An Essay(2006)
- Insane: James Holmes, Clark v. Arizona, and America's Insanity Defense.(2018)
- → The insanity defense in Shelby County, Tennessee(1985)