NCJ Number
104880
Journal
Criminal Justice and Behavior Volume: 14 Issue: 1 Dated: (March 1987) Pages: 38-61
Date Published
1987
Length
24 pages
Annotation
This research attempts to account for the variations in expert witnesses' judgements of insanity in a particular case.
Abstract
Three versions of a hypothetical insanity-defense case called Albert were randomly distributed to a sample of 1,002 psychiatrists and clinical psychologists, with usable returns being received from 262 subjects. A favorable opinion of Albert's insanity defense was found to correlate with being a psychiatrist, having a liberal ideology, being in favor of the insanity defense in general, and having received the 'neutral,' as opposed to the 'sympathetic' or 'unsympathetic,' version of the case. A post hoc analysis also found that coming from a state that placed the burden of proof on the prosecution was associated with a favorable opinion of Albert's insanity defense. Taken together, these variables accounted for 42 percent of the nonerror variance in opinions of Albert's insanity defense. (Publisher abstract)