Moral wrongfulness and insanity: a New Zealand sample

Introduction: This study sought to identify the common characteristics amongst defendants found legally insane, compared to those who were psychiatrically evaluated yet convicted of their crime. Method: A retrospective review of court-ordered psychiatric court reports and legal outcomes was conducted, for all defendants referred for insanity evaluations in the largest city in New Zealand (and its surrounding rural regions) for a 7-year period. Results: The majority (60%; 37) of those referred for evaluation were found legally insane. The opinion regarding moral wrongfulness was the single factor that differentiated successful insanity defendants from those who were found guilty. Conclusions: Despite the centrality of the insanity defence to forensic psychiatry, few studies internationally consider characteristics of those found insane, particularly in comparison with those who are found guilty. Psychiatrically evaluated defendants in this sample were relatively homogenous, perhaps due to the court liaison nurse screening process.     

Decision making and examiner bias in forensic expert recommendations for not guilty by reason of insanity

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.     

The insanity defense in Shelby County,Tennessee

The purpose of this investigation was threefold: to document the number of cases in Shelby County, Tennessee where an insanity defense was possible: to follow cases through to disposition to determine what percentage of defendants use the defense successfully; and to examine the type of charges for insanity cases. Of the 25.000 individuals processed through the Criminal Courts. 685 (2.7%) were referred for insanity evaluations and 45 defendants (6.6%) were returned to the court with a recommendation from the Midtown Mental Health Center's Forensic Team that an insanity defense was possible. Of the 45 insanity defendants identified, 49% (n=22) pleaded guilty, 31% (n=14) went to trial, and 20% (n=9) were dismissed. Overall, 22% (n=10) of the insanity defendants were adjudicated not guilty by reason of insanity. Thus, of all defendants processed (25,000), 04% (n=11) were adjucated not guilty by reason of insanity. While no one type of offense predominated, two general categories were observed: murder and related offenses (33%) and property crimes (27%). The findings are discussed with reference to procedures for handling insanity cases in Tennessee and the position that extreme caution should be exercised before investing substantial resources to effect sweeping changes in laws that effect so few criminal defendants.     

The impact of stress on cognitive components of child abuse potential

The purpose of the present research was to test the effects of situational stress on the components of the cognitive behavioral model, including expectations, interpretations, and behavioral responses to child behaviors (Twentyman et al., 1985). It was predicted that parental abuse potential would be positively related to inappropriate expectations, to negative and internally caused interpretations of child behavior, and to negative parental responses. Second, it was expected that interpretations and responses would be more negative as child abuse potential increased. Sixteen mothers from a child abuse prevention and treatment program completed the Child Abuse Potential Inventory (Milner and Wimberly, 1980) and provided interpretations, evaluations, and responses to a set of vignettes depicting normal child behaviors. The data supported the hypotheses. As abuse potential increased, parent responses were judged as more controlling, punishing, rejecting, and aroused. High stress strengthened the magnitude of these responses. These findings were interpreted within the context of a cognitive behavioral model.     

Community standards of criminal liability and the insanity defense

Two experiments (N=71) compare lay standards of insanity to standards incorporated in American legal codes. In Experiment 1, case vignettes provided only legally relevant information about defendants' degrees of impairment in cognition or in behavioral control. Respondents' judgments of criminal liability ornot guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) reflected an exculpatory standard of substantial impairment in both cognition and control. In Experiment 2, case vignettes provided realistic information about defendants' psychiatric diagnoses; respondents had to infer levels of cognitive and control impairment. Results showed that respondents made highly idiosyncratic inferences based on diagnostic categories, but once made, these inferences predicted NGRI judgments. Implications of the concordance between laypeople's rules for assigning NGRI verdicts and the rules used in American legal codes are discussed.Daniel Bailis gratefully acknowledges the support of Public Health Service grant No. 5T32 MH18021-07 for Research Training in Social Psychology during the time in which the present research was conducted. John Darley wished to acknowledge the generous support of the John Simon Guggenheim Foundation and Princeton University. Study 2 presents work done for the Princeton University undergraduate thesis of Tracy Waxman. The authors are grateful to Norman J. Finkel, Valerie Hans, and three anonymous reviewers for comments on an earlier draft on this article.Northwestern University.     

The military insanity defense

This article describes the military insanity defense. The success of the litigated insanity defense is explored through the number of insanity acquittals over a 28-month period. A questionnaire distributed to all United States Army psychiatrists provided information on the number of forensic evaluations performed, the number of not criminally responsible (NCR) opinions made, and the disposition of noncontested NCR opinions. The questionnaire also tested the Army psychiatrists' knowledge about recent changes in the military insanity defense. This pilot study raises interesting questions about the military insanity defense that further research can address.     

Assessing trait memory distrust: Psychometric properties of the Squire Subjective Memory Questionnaire

Purpose. When people suffer from memory distrust, they evaluate their memory in negative terms. Memory distrust plays an important role in police interrogations because it may underlie false confessions. The Squire Subjective Memory Questionnaire (SSMQ) intends to be a simple measure of trait memory distrust. To our knowledge, no data have been published about the psychometric properties of the SSMQ. Methods. Relying on five samples (Ns = 70–819) of healthy individuals and patients, we studied the psychometric characteristics of the SSMQ. Participants were recruited at the university, a neuropsychological unit or through advertisements in newspapers. They were asked to complete the SSMQ and several other tests. In this way, reliability and validity parameters could be assessed. Results. Principle component analysis showed that the SSMQ has a one‐dimensional structure referring to subjective memory evaluation. The SSMQ was found to have adequate reliability and good construct validity. Furthermore, it appears to correlate in a theoretically meaningful way with age and cognitive failures. Conclusions. All together, the SSMQ is a psychometrically sound screening tool that can be helpful in assessing subjective memory evaluations in the legal domain. In this way, vulnerable suspects can be identified in an early stage.     

How jurors construe “insanity”

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. Are the critics right? In this study, 263 mock jurors (141 adults and 122 students) were asked to decide four insanity cases without instructions, using their own best judgment, and to identify the determinative facts for them, and the meaning of those facts. Those determinative factors were then categorized, using a seven construct schema for NGRI and guilty verdicts. The results show that jurors do make discriminations among cases in terms of constructs, and that these constructs are relevant, complex, and flexible; furthermore, the jurors' lay constructs of insanity are more complex than the legal constructs of insanity. The “simplism,” it seems, lies not with the jurors but with the insanity tests.     

The insanity defense

Changing thelegal test definition of insanity remains the remedy of choice when insanity outcomes appear problematic, despite empirical studies showing no significant differences among tests. An alternative strategy suggests changing theverdict schema, although critics contend that jurors will reach compromise verdicts that are unconscionable and incoherent. Undergraduate subjects (N=179) rendered insanity verdicts and ratings for four insanity cases using one of four different verdict schemas: a traditional two-choice schema, a three-choice schema (DR) without instructions, a threechoice schema (GBMI) with instructions, and a sequential schema proposed by Finkel (1988) that separately assesses different types of culpability. When internal consistency measures between verdicts and broad ratings and specific construct ratings of the defendant were examined, the sequential schema produced the highest internal consistency, reducing the most error variance and yielding the highest prediction criterion of any of the schemas.     

Implicit theories of criminal responsibility

Three questions relevant to insanity decisions were examined: (a) What informational cues are weighed most heavily in the attribution of criminal responsibility? (b) How do verdict forms influence these attributions? And (c) How do individuals' beliefs about insanity and responsibility influence decision making? Undergraduate subjects (n=181) responded to vignettes portraying an act by a mentally disordered defendant. Psychiatric jargon was avoided, so that attributions were not a function of diagnostic terminology. It was found that, under the traditional scheme of not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) vs. guilty, level of mental disorder (schizophrenia vs. personality disorder) was the primary determinant of insanity decisions. Also, insanity judgments were more likely to be made for acts performed without planful intentionality. Under the alternative scheme of NGRI vs. guilty but mentally ill (GBMI) vs. guilty, mental disorder still controlled NGRI verdicts; a bizarre act increased the likelihood of a GBMI over a guilty verdict; and the GBMI verdict option reduced markedly the proportion of psychotic defendants found NGRI and the proportion of personality disordered defendants found guilty. There were no significant differences between diagnostic groups in the likelihood of being found GBMI. Most subjects preferred to utilize the GBMI option as a compromise verdict even in the face of very severe mental illness. Attitudinal data revealed considerable variation in agreement with the classic moral logic of the insanity defense and accounted for a significant amount of the variance in insanity decisions. The implications for both social policy and future research are discussed.     

Pathological gambling and criminal responsibility

There exists significant interdisciplinary support for eliminating the volitional component of the insanity defense. Somewhat in contrast to this trend is the presentation of pathological gambling as a potentially exculpatory condition in criminal trials. The authors discuss three federal appellate court decisions on this attempted inappropriate usage of psychiatric diagnostic nomenclature. All have upheld convictions, and thereby rejected contentions that such an impulse disorder can form the basis for a valid plea of lack of criminal responsibility. It is suggested that the public interest will be served by statutorily making disturbances of behavioral control insufficient to raise a defense of insanity.     

The Impact of Insanity Acquittees on Missouri's Public Mental Health System

Even though state departments of mental health have primary responsibility for the care, custody, and treatment of insanity acquittees, the impact of insanity acquittees on the public mental health system is generally lacking in policy discussions and as a topic for policy research. This issue has received increased attention in Missouri, where insanity acquittees now occupy half of the long-term public psychiatric hospital beds. This article examines the presence of Missouri's insanity acquittees on the state's public mental health system and includes the impact on goals, fiscal costs, inpatient and community psychiatric services, and inpatient treatment staff. As states consider managed care and other cost containment measures, it remains to be seen if the high costs associated with extensive use of hospitalization of insanity acquittees to promote public safety will influence policy changes to more community-based insanity acquittee systems.     

Ultimate opinion proscriptions: A cosmetic fix and a plea for empiricism

In recent years, ultimate opinion testimony given by mental health experts in insanity trials has come under strident criticism as an unwarranted incursion into the legal arena. This article examines the merits of such criticism and concludes that attempts to eliminate such testimony will not achieve their intended goals but will obscure more substantive issues inherent in insanity evaluations and subsequent testimony. The article then recasts problems in expert testimony in a broader conceptual basis buttressed with empiricism.     

Deconstructing the Criminal Defence of Insanity

The significance of this article is in its deconstruction of the criminal insanity defence in a meta-legal critical context. The article’s objective is to critically review beliefs that the insanity defence was designed solely for public protection from insane violent people, or, for criminal deterrence. Arising from the long and continued use of the Roman Law concept of non compos mentis, the question arises as to what has become of the practical meaning of the term “insanity”, when used as a defence. The article tries to show that the defence of insanity is a public act of judicial denunciation against the accused, while the accused may have no effective responsibility for the crime. Argument begins with a critical discussion on the character of common-place denunciation as an appeal to public agreement. Then, it follows how the idea of “manifest criminality”, of the 1800s, might be cognate to modern ideas of “manifest madness”, linking into the origins of the English special verdict of insanity. This will allow a short critical analysis of the M’Naghten Case. Argument is completed with analysis of a psychologists’ expert construct of insanity and its relationship to jury perception. The article will suggest strongly that arguments based on the common law rules of insanity tend to expose juries more to denunciation of the accused, than to a reasoned account of the nature of his insanity and to the defects in his responsibility. Duly persuaded jurors would tend to acquiesce and participate in the denunciation of an accused person, whose unusual and unhealthy behaviours emanated from his sufferings by dint of his unbearable circumstances.     

A comparison of insanity defense standards on juror decision making

Following the Hinckley acquittal, 17 states and the federal government made changes to the insanity defense, including revising the standard, reassigning the burden of proof, and altering the standard of proof. Two studies were conducted to determine whether the specific insanity standard (including the assignment of burden of proof and standard of proof) employed had a significant effect on mock jurors' verdicts. Participants' comprehension of insanity defense instructions was measured and the factors jurors used to decide whether to find the defendant not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) were also assessed. Participants' comprehension of insanity defense standards was very low. When asked to identify the factors they considered important in determining whether to find a defendant NGRI, only three elements of insanity defense standards were identified as significant. The results may have important implications for policy decisions regarding the insanity defense.     

Mental disorder and legal responsibility: The relevance of stages of decision making

The paper discusses the relevance of decision-making models for evaluating the impact of mental disorder on legal responsibility. A three-stage model is presented that analyzes decision making in terms of behavioral control. We argue that understanding dysfunctions in each of the three stages of decision making could provide important insights in the relation between mental disorder and legal responsibility. In particular, it is argued that generating options for action constitutes an important but largely ignored stage of the decision-making process, and that dysfunctions in this early stage might undermine the whole process of making decisions (and thus behavioral control) more strongly than dysfunctions in later stages. Lastly, we show how the presented framework could be relevant to the actual psychiatric assessment of a defendant's decision making within the context of an insanity defense.     

Reliability and validity of the Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version in Dutch female adolescents

In the present study, the reliability and construct validity of the Dutch version of the Psychopathy Check List: Youth Version (Psychopathie Checklist: Jeugd Versie; De Ruiter, Kuin, De Vries & Das, 2002) were examined in a sample of female adolescents admitted to a secure treatment institution (N=67). The study provides mixed support for the internal reliability of the PCL:YV in female adolescents. Interrater reliability was found to be adequate at the level of factor and total PCL:YV scores. Poor reliability was demonstrated for the behavioral items of the PCL:YV in particular. Finally, the construct validity of the PCL:YV total and factor scores was supported by theoretically meaningful and significant associations with scores on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) and the Interpersonal Checklist-Revised (ICL-R). The applicability of PCL:YV items to female adolescents is discussed.     

Further insights into the construct of criminal social identity: validation of a revised measure in a prison population

The current study objective was to develop a revised version of the Measure of Criminal Social Identity (MCSI) with an increased number of indicators to more reliably capture three MCSI dimensions. Dimensionality and construct validity of the Measure of Criminal Social Identity – Revised (MCSI-R) was examined among a sample of systematically selected inmates (N = 2192). Four competing models of the MCSI-R were specified and tested using Mplus with weighted least squares with mean and variance adjustment estimation. Bifactor model with three meaningful factors (cognitive centrality, in-group affect and in-group ties) while controlling for the general factor was the best fit for the data. Good composite reliability of the three MCSI-R dimensions was established. The three subscales of the MCSI-R evidence differential predictive utility for prisonization, number of incarcerations, self-esteem and violent offending. Practical implications and directions for future research are discussed.     

Venirepersons’s Attitudes Toward the Insanity Defense: Developing,Refining, and Validating a Scale

Given the prevalence and predictive strength of negative attitudes toward the insanity defense, we conducted three studies with 426 venirepersons to develop an understanding and a measure of public attitudes toward the insanity defense. In these studies, we developed, iteratively refined, and cross-validated the insanity defense attitude-revised (IDA-R) scale. The results suggest that IDAs are underpinned by ones degree of (a) orientation toward strict liability, and (b) concern about perceived injustice and danger associated with the defense. The IDA-R assesses these two-dimensions with good internal consistency, convergent and divergent validity, and predictive utility. The IDA-Rs predictive utility generalizes across jurisdictions and manipulation of case facts. Theoretical and practical implications for research and for identifying impartial jurors at voir dire are discussed.     

Internal reliability and construct validity of the Novaco Anger Scale-1998-S in a sample of violent prison inmates in Sweden

Abstract

In this study, the internal reliability and construct validity of the recently adapted Swedish version of the Novaco Anger Scale (NAS-1998-S; Lindqvist, Dåderman, & Hellström, Social Behavior and Personality, 8, 773–788, 2003), as well as its scale correlations with demographic and criminality variables, were investigated. Construct validity was established by assessing the correlation pattern of the scales of NAS-1998-S with concurrent scales of similar and distinct constructs. Ninety-five male violent prisoners, ranging in age from 18 to 67 years, participated. The results demonstrated good internal reliability, consistent intrascale relationships, and appropriate construct validity of NAS-1998-S. The number of previous convictions had a moderate negative relationship with the capacity of control. Age and education correlated negatively with the NAS-1998-S scales, except Regulation. In addition to psychometric issues, the results were discussed from a clinical perspective on the offender population.