Social science and the Courts

Social scientists have increasingly become involved in the submission of amicus curiae or friend of the court briefs in legal cases being decided by state and federal courts. This increase has triggered considerable debate about the use of briefs to communicate relevant social science research. This article evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of various methods of summarizing social science research for the courts. It also reviews the procedures for submitting briefs developed by the American Psychology-Law Society which, in collaboration with the American Psychological Association, has submitted its first brief inMaryland v. Craig, a case recently decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.The authors wish to thank James Ogloff, Kathy Roesch, and Claudia Worrell for their comments on an earlier draft     

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.     

The believability of repressed memories

Two experiments investigated how mock jurors react to a case involving a repressed memory of child sexual assault. Subjects read a fictional civil trial (Experiment 1) or criminal trial (Experiment 2) summary involving the sexual assault of a 6-year-old female. The summary was presented in one of three conditions: (a)child condition: the alleged victim reported her memory of the assault in the same year that the assault occurred; (b)repressed condition: the alleged victim reported the assault 20 years later, after remembering it for the first time; or (c)no-repressed condition: the alleged victim reported the assault 20 years later, but the memory of the assault had been present for the 20 years. Although the testimony of the alleged victim was believed to some extent in all conditions, the alleged victim in the child condition was believed at the highest level, and this was associated with more decisions against the defendant. The results are discussed in terms of how delayed reporting of child sexual assault crimes is associated with lower believability of the alleged victim.We would like to thank Christy Kennedy, Paula Brinegar, and Elizabeth Thomas for their assistance in collecting and scoring the data, as well as Michael Nietzel, Monica Kern, Ronald Roesch, and three anonymous reviewers for their comments on earlier drafts of this paper.     

An evaluation of procedures for assessing competency to stand trial

In a field experiment involving 120 defendants at Bridgewater State Hospital in Massachusetts, the authors evaluated three instruments for assessing competency to stand trial: the Competency Screening Test (CST), Competency Assessment Instrument (CAI), and Interdisciplinary Fitness Interview (IFI). The CST (a paper-and-pencil test) was administered by a research assistant and scored by trained graduate students. Lawyers, psychologists, and social workers were recruited and trained in the use of the other instruments, then assigned as individuals (CAI) or teams (IFI) to conduct interviews and assess subjects. The performance of the project interviewers was compared against two yardsticks: (1) actual decisions reached by the regular Bridgewater staff, and (2) a consensus of two nationally respected experts who reviewed the cases and formed independent competency judgments. Both the CAI and IFI performed well under these conditions, indicating that one-time interviews by well-trained persons can lead to accurate competency decisions in the majority of cases. The authors conclude that hospitalization for competency assessment is rarely necessary.     

Participant gender,stalking myth acceptance,and gender role stereotyping in perceptions of intimate partner stalking: a structural equation modeling approach

The present research used a mock juror experiment (N = 360) to assess two primary goals: (1) to examine the direct and indirect effects of participant gender, stalking myth acceptance, and gender role stereotyping on guilt ratings in a stalking trial; and (2) to examine the role of perceived victim fear and distress, and defendant intended danger on perceptions of a stalking trial. Using structural equation modeling, we found an indirect effect of participant gender, and both direct and indirect effects of stalking myth acceptance and gender role stereotyping on guilt ratings. Men and participants who endorsed more traditional gender role stereotypes were associated with adherence to stalking myth acceptance beliefs. Endorsement of particular stalking myth acceptance beliefs offers a partial explanation for why women and men differed on perceptions of the defendant's intent to cause danger and the victim's perceived fear and distress. Results provide insight into the efficacy of current anti-stalking legislation that relies on a juror's capacity to evaluate an ‘objective’ interpretation (i.e., ‘reasonable person’) standard of fear for intimate partner stalking.