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.     

Social Networks and Social Control of Probationers with Co-Occurring Mental and Substance Abuse Problems

Probationers with co-occurring mental and substance abuse problems (PCPs) are both subject to considerable social control, and at high risk of probation failure. In this study, we screened 601 probationers for symptoms, interviewed 82 identified PCPs about their relationships, and then followed these PCPs for eight months to record treatment nonadherence and other probation violations. First, PCPs’ social networks were small, heavily comprised of professionals and opposing forces who engaged in risky behavior, and saturated with pressure to adhere to treatment. Second, the size and composition of PCPs’ social networks were more relevant to rule compliance than social support and undermining. Third, the quality of PCPs’ relationships was key: satisfying relationships with clinicians and, to a lesser extent, officers and the core network related to low perceived coercion, high treatment adherence, and low risk of future violations. In particular, having a likable clinician who engaged in participatory decision-making reduced the risk of violations. Implications for contextually sensitive risk reduction efforts are discussed.     

Supervision practices in specialty mental health probation: What happens in officer-probationer meetings?

As the correctional population continues to increase, probation agencies struggle to adequately supervise offenders with unique needs, including those with mental disorder. Although more than 100 U.S. probation agencies have implemented specialty mental health case-loads, little is known about their practices. Based on detailed observations of 83 audio-taped meetings, we examined interactions between probationers and officers in a prototypic specialty agency, focusing on the extent to which practices comport with evidence-based risk reduction principles. We found that specialty officers (a) more frequently discussed probationers' general mental health than any individual criminogenic need, (b) chiefly questioned, directed, affirmed, and supported (rather than confronted) probationers, and (c) relied more heavily on neutral strategies and positive pressures (e.g., inducements) rather than negative pressures (e.g., threats of incarceration) to monitor and enforce compliance. Implications for "what works" to promote community integration for probationers with mental disorder are discussed.     

Does the three-factor model of psychopathy identify a problematic subgroup of young offenders?

The present study tests the utility of the personality-based three-factor model of psychopathy according to the Hare Psychopathy Checklist: Screening Version (PCL:SV). This model of psychopathy excludes aspects of criminal behavior as opposed to other models of psychopathy. The main research question was to what extent the three-factor model of psychopathy can identify a problematic subgroup of young offenders. The sample consisted of 148 incarcerated young male criminal offenders, between 15 and 25 years of age (mean=19.07, SD=2.11) who were recruited from a central detention center for young offenders in a northern German county. Model-based cluster analysis of the three psychopathy factors showed that three different clusters labeled: (i) Unemotional/Impulsive-Irresponsible, (ii) Low traits, and (iii) Psychopathic personality, had the best fit to the data. The psychopathic personality cluster with high scores on all three factors of the PCL:SV exhibited, as expected, a significantly higher prevalence of conduct disorder and substance use problems, but was not significantly different from the other clusters on past criminality and previous incarcerations. In conclusion, the results showed that the three-factor model of psychopathy can be useful in identifying a problematic subgroup of young offenders.