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.     

Reinstatement of the sexual harasser: the conflict between federal labor law and Title VII

Greater numbers of employers are adopting and vigorously enforcing policies prohibiting sexual harassment in the workplace. Discipline, including possible termination of employment, often is prescribed for the violation of such policies. When employees are represented by a union and covered by a collective bargaining agreement, final decisions relating to discipline often are made by arbitrators pursuant to the agreement's grievance and arbitration procedure. For a variety of reasons, arbitrators may decide that a lesser form of discipline than that imposed by the employer is warranted for acts of sexual harassment. Such arbitration awards present a substantial conflict between two compelling public policies--the public policy favoring the private resolution of workplace disputes and the public policy against sexual harassment. This article will address the several federal courts of appeals' decisions that have attempted to resolve this conflict.     

Navigating the minefield: legal ethics and healthcare law

Practicing law in the healthcare field is a daunting task due to the highly-regulated nature of the field and the increasing scrutiny of the conduct of industry providers, payors, and vendors. Attorneys must provide difficult opinions regarding matters with civil, criminal, and reimbursement implications and often are asked to represent multiple parties in healthcare-related settings. This article discusses some legal ethics issues for the healthcare practitioner and touches on some of the recent changes to the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, which were adopted by the American Bar Association's House of Delegates at its mid-February 2002 meeting. The authors conduct their analysis by applying the model rules to a number of hypothetical fact situations typical of those encountered in the day-to-day practice of healthcare law.     

Juror decision making,attitudes, and the hindsight bias

This study examines juror decision making in civil suits against police officers alleged to have engaged in illegal searches, using simulated case materials and mock jurors drawn both from adults called for jury service and a student subject pool. The experiment assesses the impact of a cognitive process (thehindsight bias) and of individual attitudes on awards and finds that both are related to juror decisions. We test a theoretical model that specifies that both attitudes and outcome knowledge exercise their influence upon the damage award decision by means of their impact on interpretation of testimony. Causal models of the decision-making process appear to support the role played by interpretation of evidence as a mediator between individual attributes and juror decisions.We are indebted to Reid Hastie, Tom Tyler, Phoebe Ellsworth, Jack Heinz, Robert Nelson, Rayman Solomon, and Bonnie Fisher for assistance with various aspects of the design, data collection, and analysis reported here. Financial support was provided by the American Bar Foundation, and the Center for Urban Affairs and Policy Research and the Dispute Resolution Research Center, both at Northwestern University.John D. & Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.     

An analysis of the relationship between jurors' personal attributes and decision making

Using a survey from a jury simulation study, this study examines the relationship between jurors' personal and social attributes and their decision-making behavior. The hypothesis is examined whether personal attributes and socialization of jurors have any significant effect on their decision-making behavior. The analysis suggests that personal and/or social attributes of jurors have little, if any, impact on their decision-making behavior. Instead, jury instruction and information about the matter appear to be major influence contributors. Additionally, evidence presented during the trial and knowledge of law have significant effects upon how jurors decide cases and give verdicts. Author's Note: Suman Kakar, Ph.D., is associate professor at Florida International University, College of Health and Urban Affairs. She conducts research in the areas of juvenile delinquency, child abuse, family dynamics, minorities, and the prevention of violence. She has published two books,Child Abuse and Delinquency (1996) andCriminal Justice Approaches to Domestic Violence (1998).