Expert testimony and the effects of a biological approach, psychopathy, and juror attitudes in cases of insanity

Amid growing psychological controversy and legal interest surrounding the uses of PCL‐R and biological evidence in the legal system, this mock jury study assessed the effects of PCL‐R and biological evidence on outcomes in an insanity defense case. A sample of 428 undergraduates read a trial transcr...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Behavioral sciences & the law 2010-05, Vol.28 (3), p.411-425
Main Authors: Rendell, Jariel A., Huss, Matthew T., Jensen, Maren L.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adolescent
Antisocial Personality Disorder - diagnosis
Antisocial Personality Disorder - psychology
Attitude
Attitudes
Authoritarianism
Brain Diseases - diagnosis
Brain Diseases - physiopathology
Brain Diseases - psychology
Criminal Law - legislation & jurisprudence
Decision Making
Defendants
Expert Testimony - legislation & jurisprudence
Expert witness testimony
Female
Frontal Lobe - physiopathology
Homicide - legislation & jurisprudence
Humans
Insanity
Insanity Defense
Insanity pleas
Juries
Legal research
Legal system
Male
Malingering - diagnosis
Malingering - psychology
Manslaughter
Neurotransmitter Agents - physiology
Personality Assessment
Psychopathology
Psychopaths
Psychopathy
Schizophrenia - diagnosis
Schizophrenia - physiopathology
Social Responsibility
Trials
Young Adult
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Amid growing psychological controversy and legal interest surrounding the uses of PCL‐R and biological evidence in the legal system, this mock jury study assessed the effects of PCL‐R and biological evidence on outcomes in an insanity defense case. A sample of 428 undergraduates read a trial transcript of an insanity defense murder case. Three variables of interest were manipulated: rebuttal illness (no mental illness, personality disorder, or psychopathy), evidentiary basis (biological or psychological), and evidentiary strength (moderately strong or moderately weak). Consistent with the hypotheses, biological evidence was more persuasive than psychological evidence, and the rebuttal was slightly more successful when the prosecution labeled the defendant as a “psychopath” than when they described him simply as “not mentally ill.” Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
ISSN:0735-3936
1099-0798
DOI:10.1002/bsl.913