Abstract
Historically and currently, jurors who have rendered verdicts in insanity cases have themselves been criticized and maligned-accused of being simplistic and biased, of lacking understanding, and of disregarding or nullifying the judge's instructions. Are the critics right? In this study, 263 mock jurors (141 adults and 122 students) were asked to decide four insanity cases without instructions, using their own best judgment, and to identify the determinative facts for them, and the meaning of those facts. Those determinative factors were then categorized, using a seven construct schema for NGRI and guilty verdicts. The results show that jurors do make discriminations among cases in terms of constructs, and that these constructs are relevant, complex, and flexible; furthermore, the jurors' lay constructs of insanity are more complex than the legal constructs of insanity. The “simplism,” it seems, lies not with the jurors but with the insanity tests.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Amicus Curiae Brief for the American Psychological Association (1987). In the Supreme Court of the United States:Lockhart v. McCree. American Psychologist, 42, 1, 59–68.
Driver v. Hinnant, 356 F.2d 761 (4th Cir, 1966).
Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate (1982).The insanity defense. (Serial No. J-97-126). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Feild, H. S., & Barnett, N. J. (1978). Simulated jury trials: Students vs. “real” people as jurors.Journal of Social Psychology, 104, 287–293.
Fingarette, H., & Hasse, A. F. (1979).Mental disabilities and criminal responsibility. Berkeley, California: University of California Press.
Finkel, N. J. (1980).Therapy and ethics: The courtship of law and psychology. New York: Grune & Stratton.
Finkel, N. J. (1982, August). Insanity defenses: Jurors' assessment of mental disease, responsibility, and culpability. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
Finkel, N. J. (1988). Maligning and misconstruing jurors' insanity verdicts: A rebuttal.Forensic Reports, 1, 97–124.
Finkel, N. J., & Handel, S. F. (1986, August). “Insanity,” as jurors “see” it. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
Finkel, N. J., & Handel, S. F. (1988). Jurors and insanity: Do test instructions instruct?Forensic Reports, 1, 65–79.
Finkel, N. J., Shaw, R., Bercaw, S., & Koch, J. (1985). Insanity defenses: From the jurors' perspective.Law and Psychology Review, 9, 77–92.
Gerber, R. J. (1984).The insanity defense. Port Washington, New York: Associated Faculty Press.
Hadfield, 27 State Trials (1800).
Holstein, J. A. (1985). Jurors' interpretations and jury decision making.Law and Human Behavior, 9, 83–100.
Horowitz, I. A. (1985). The effect of jury nullification instruction on verdicts and jury functioning in criminal trials.Law and Human Behavior, 9, 1, 25–36.
Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984. Public Law 98-473, Sec. 401, 402 §20 (1984).
James, R. M. (1959a). Jurors' assessment of criminal responsibility.Social Problems, 7, 58–67.
James, R. M. (1959b). Status and competence of jurors.American Journal of Sociology, 64, 563–570.
Kalven, H., Jr., & Zeisel, H. (1971).The American Jury. (Phoenix ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Kelly, G. A. (1955).A theory of personality: The psychology of personal constructs. New York: W. W. Norton.
Lamiell, J. T., & Trierweiler, S. J. (1986). Personality measurement and intuitive personality judgments from an idiothetic point of view.Clinical Psychology Review, 6, 471–491.
M'Naghten's Case, 10 Cl. & Fin. 200, 8 Eng. Rep. 718 (1843).
McNulty, F. (1980).The burning bed. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Moran, R. (1981).Knowing right from wrong: The insanity defense of Daniel McNaughtan. New York: The Free Press.
Morris, N. (1982).Madness and the criminal law. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Parsons v. State, 2 SO.854 (ALA, 1887).
People v. Grant, 71 Ill. 2d 551, 377 N.E. 2d 4 (1978).
Rex v. Arnold, 16 How. St. Tr. 684, 764 (1723).
Roberts, C. F., Golding, S. L., & Fincham, F. D. (1987). Implicit theories of criminal responsibility: Decision making and the insanity defense.Law and Human Behavior, 11, 3, 207–232.
Robinson, D. N. (1980).Psychology and law: Can justice survive the social sciences? New York: Oxford University Press.
Simon, R. J. (1967).The jury and the defense of insanity. Boston: Little, Brown.
Subcommittee on Criminal Law of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate. (1983).Limiting the insanity defense. (serial No. J-97-122). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
United States v. Hinckley, 525 F. Supp. 1342 (D.C. 1981).
Visher, C. A. (1987). Juror decision making: The importance of evidence.Law and Human Behavior, 11, 1, 1–17.
Walker, N. (1968).Crime and insanity in England, Vol. I: The historical perspective. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
About this article
Cite this article
Finkel, N.J., Handel, S.F. How jurors construe “insanity”. Law Hum Behav 13, 41–59 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01056162
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01056162