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.     

Death associated with inadvertent hydrocodone overdose in a child with a respiratory tract infection

A 3-year-old child died of the combined effects of a bacterial superinfection and a relative overdose of hydrocodone prescribed for a cough due to a presumed viral respiratory tract infection. This case illustrates the importance of evaluating the effects of prescribed medication in assessing the cause and mechanism of death in children dying suddenly of presumed natural disease.     

Toxicology and Circumstances of Completed Suicide by Means Other than Overdose*

Abstract: To determine the prevalence and circumstances of psychoactive substances amongst nonoverdose completed suicide, 1436 consecutive cases autopsied at the NSW Department of Forensic Medicine over the period 1/1/1997–12/31/2006 were analyzed. Substances were detected in 67.2% of cases, and illicit drugs in 20.1%. Alcohol was present in 40.6% of cases. Males were more likely to be positive for alcohol, cannabis, and psychostimulants, and females for pharmaceuticals. Illicits were associated with younger age. Alcohol was most prominent amongst toxicity cases, as were opioids, psychostimulants amongst gunshot cases, and pharmaceuticals amongst drownings. Cases in which drug and alcohol histories were noted were more likely to have a substance detected. Alcohol was more common where a suicide note was left and where relationship problems were involved. Pharmaceuticals were more common where a previous attempt was noted. Licit and illicit substances are strongly associated with suicide, even when the method does not involve drug overdose.     

The Seventeenth-Century Origins of Modern Salvage Law

Reginald Marsden argued that Sir Henry Marten, while judge of the High Court of Admiralty, had in 1633 entertained the first action for civil salvage ‘in the modern sense’. But Marsden could find little evidence among the formal Admiralty decrees of the seventeenth century that sea-coasters or mariners had regularly used this new plea in the central court to seek rewards for saving ships and cargoes. A sampling of the court's Act Books, however, reveals that Admiralty judges may well have ruled in more than 200 salvage cases from the time of Sir Henry's innovation until the end of the century. In some of these cases, moreover, Sir Richard Lloyd, a late-Stuart judge, abandoned the ancient custom of rewarding salvors with half of what was saved and developed instead the modern and equitable practice of adjusting awards according to what salvors had done and risked in rescuing the property of others.