Advertisement

Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Decision making and examiner bias in forensic expert recommendations for not guilty by reason of insanity

Abstract

Source of nomination (prosecution, defense, judge) was varied in a fictional not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) case distributed to 180 community forensic evaluators in a state employing theM'Naghten rule. Differences among examiners by appointment for the final NGRI judgment was not significant; interrater reliability for psychopathological symptomatology was .73. Discriminant analysis revealed significant differences in the decision-making process between evaluators recommending sanity and those endorsing insanity, as well as between psychiatrists and psychologists.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. American Psychiatric Association (1984).Issues in forensic psychiatry: Insanity defense, hospitalization of adults, model civil commitment law, sentencing process and child custody consultation. Washington, DC: Author.

  2. Bazelon, D. J. (1974). Psychiatrists and the adversary process.Scientific American, 230, 8–22.

  3. Blau, T. H. (1984).The psychologist as expert witness. New York: Wiley.

  4. Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales.Educational Psychological Measurement, 20, 37–46.

  5. Dillman, D. A. (1978).Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method. New York: Wiley.

  6. Exner, J. E. (1986).The Rorschach: A comprehensive system (Vol. 1). New York: Wiley.

  7. Eysenck, H. J., Wakefield, J. A., Jr., & Friedman, A. F. (1983). Diagnosis and clinical assessment: The DSM-III.Annual Review of Psychology, 34, 167–193.

  8. Grove, W. M., Andreasen, N. C., McDonald-Scott, P., Keller, M. B., & Shapiro, R. W. (1981). Reliability studies of psychiatric diagnosis.Archives of General Psychiatry, 38, 408–413.

  9. Hain, J. D. (1964). The Bender-Gestalt Test: A scoring method for identifying brain damage.Journal of Consulting Psychology, 28, 34–42.

  10. Homant, R. J., & Kennedy, D. B. (1987). Subjective factors in the judgment of insanity.Criminal Justice and Behavior, 14, 38–61.

  11. Homant, R. J., & Kennedy, D. B. (1985). Determinants of expert witnesses' opinions in insanity defense cases. In S. M. Talarico (Ed.),Courts and criminal justice: Emerging issues. Beverly Hills, California: Sage.

  12. Hutt, M. L. (1969).The Hutt adaptation of the Bender-Gestalt test (2nd ed.). New York: Grune & Stratton.

  13. Konecni, V. J., & Ebbesen, E. B. (1979). External validity of research in legal psychology.Law and Human Behavior, 3, 39–70.

  14. Konecni, V. J., & Ebbesen, E. B. (1981). A critique of theory and method in social-psychological approaches to legal issues. In B. D. Sales (Ed.),Perspectives in law and psychology: The trial process (pp. 481–497). New York: Plenum.

  15. Menninger, K. (1966).The crime of punishment. New York: Viking.

  16. Otto, R. K. (1986). Bias and expert testimony of mental health professionals. Unpublished dissertation. Florida State University.

  17. Robinson, D. N. (1982, June 23). TheHinckley decision: Psychiatry in court.Wall Street Journal, 5.

  18. Szasz, T. S. (1960). The myth of mental illness.American Psychologist, 15, 113–118.

  19. Sidley, N. (1980). President's message: The ethics of forensic psychiatry.Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 8, iv-vii.

  20. Spitzer, R. L., & Fleiss, J. L. (1974). A reanalysis of the reliability of psychiatric diagnosis.American Journal of Psychiatry, 125, 341–347.

  21. Ziskin, J. (1975).Coping with psychiatric and psychological testimony. Beverly Hills, California: Law and Psychology Press.

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Jean C. Beckham.

About this article

Cite this article

Beckham, J.C., Annis, L.V. & Gustafson, D.J. Decision making and examiner bias in forensic expert recommendations for not guilty by reason of insanity. Law Hum Behav 13, 79–87 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01056164

Download citation

Keywords

  • Decision Making
  • Social Psychology
  • Discriminant Analysis
  • Interrater Reliability
  • Expert Recommendation