Skip to main content
Log in

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

  • Articles
  • Published:
Law and Human Behavior

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 via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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 Unpublished dissertation.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

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

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

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

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01056164

Keywords

Navigation