Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Venirepersons’s Attitudes Toward the Insanity Defense: Developing, Refining, and Validating a Scale

  • Published:
Law and Human Behavior

Abstract

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 one’s 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-R’s 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.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 112 A.L.R. 531 (1996).

  • 28 A.L.R. Fed. 26, § 34a (1996).

  • Abbott, W., Hall, F., & Linville, E. (1993). Jury research: A review and bibliography. Philadelphia, PA: American Bar Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abelson, R. (1992). Opportunities in survey measurement of attitudes. In J. Tanur (Ed.), Questions about questions: Inquiries into the cognitive bases of surveys (pp. 177–203). New York: Russel Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adams v. Texas (1980). 448 U.S. 38.

  • Appelbaum, P. S. (1994). Almost a revolution: Mental health law and the limits of change. London: Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bailis, D., Darley, J., Waxman, T., & Robinson, P. (1995). Community standards of criminal liability and the insanity defense. Law and Human Behavior, 19, 425–446.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bentler, P. (1995). EQS structural equation program model. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brockington, I., Hall, P., Levings, J., & Murphy, C. (1993). The community’s tolerance of the mentally ill. British Journal of Psychiatry, 162, 93–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bueker, J. (1997). Jury source lists: Does supplementation really work? Cornell Law Review, 82, 390–431.

    Google Scholar 

  • Census of Population and Housing. (1990). Educational attainment: Persons 18 years and older (STF3A, P060). Salt Lake City, UT: Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget.

  • Crowne, D., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349–354.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cutler, B., Moran, G., & Narby, D. (1992). Jury selection in insanity defense cases. Journal of Research in Personality, 26, 165–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dayan, M., Mahler, R., & Widenhouse, M. (1989). Searching for an impartial sentencer through jury selection in capital trials. Loyola Law Review, 23, 151–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillehay, R., & Sandys, M. (1996). Life under Wainwright v. Witt: Juror dispositions and death qualification. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 147–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dressler, J. (1991). Understanding criminal procedure. New York: Matthew Bender & Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A., & Mladinic, A. (1989). Gender stereotypes and attitudes toward men and women. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15, 543–558.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellsworth, P., Bukaty, R., Cowan, C., & Thompson, W. (1984). The death-qualified jury and the defense of insanity. Law and Human Behavior, 8, 81–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • English, P., & Sales, B. (1997). A ceiling or consistency effect for the comprehension of jury instructions. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 3, 381–401.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finkel, N. (1989). The insanity defense reform act of 1984: Much ado about nothing. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 7, 403–419.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finkel, N. (1991). The insanity defense: A comparison of verdict schemas. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 533–555.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finkel, N. (1995). Commonsense justice: Jurors’ notions of the law. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finkel, N., & Handel, S. (1988). Jurors and insanity: Do test instructions instruct? Forensic Reports, 1, 65–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finkel, N., & Handel, S. (1989). How jurors construe “insanity.” Law and Human Behavior, 13, 41–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finkel, N., Shaw, R., Bercaw, S., & Kock, J. (1985). Insanity defenses: From the jurors’ perspective. Law and Psychology Review, 9, 77–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiske, S. (1993). Social cognition and social perception. Annual Review of Psychology,44, 155–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Golding, S. (1992). The adjudication of criminal responsibility: A review of theory and research. In D. Kagehiro & W. Laufer (Eds.), Handbook of psychology and law (pp. 230–250). New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hans, V. (1986). An analysis of public attitudes toward the insanity defense. Criminology, 24, 383–414.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hans, V., & Slater, D. (1984). “Plain crazy”: Lay definitions of legal insanity. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 7, 105–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hastie, R. (1991). Is attorney-conducted voir dire an effective procedure for the selection of impartial juries? American University Law Review, 40, 703–726.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hastie, R., Penrod, S., & Pennington, N. (1983). Inside the jury. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Himmelfarb, S. (1993). The measurement of attitudes. In A. Eagly, & S. Chaiken (Eds.), The psychology of attitudes (pp. 23–87). Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Homant, R., & Kennedy, D. (1987). Subjective factors in clinicians’ judgments of insanity: Comparison of a hypothetical case and an actual case. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 5, 439–336.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeffrey, R., & Pasewark, R. (1984). Altering opinions about the insanity plea. The Journal of Psychiatry and Law, 11, 29–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, C., & Haney, C. (1994). Felony voir dire: An exploratory study of its content and effect. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 487–506.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kassin, S., & Wrightsman, L. (1983). The construction and validation of a Juror Bias Scale. Journal of Research in Personality, 17, 423–442.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kravitz, D., Cutler, B., & Brock, K. (1993). Reliability and validity of the original and revised Legal Attitudes Questionnaire. Law and Human Behavior, 17, 661–677.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacCoun, R. (1989). Experimental research on jury decision-making. Science, 244, 1046–1049.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marlowe, D., & Crowne, D. (1961). Social desirability and response to perceived situational demands. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 25, 109–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moran, G., Cutler, B., & DeLisa, A. (1994). Attitudes toward tort reform, scientific jury selection, and juror bias: Verdict inclination in criminal and civil trials. Law and Psychology Review, 18, 309–328.

    Google Scholar 

  • Narby, D., Cutler, B., & Moran, G. (1993). A meta-analysis of the association between authoritarianism and jurors’ perceptions of defendant culpability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 34–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nunnally, J., & Bernstein, I. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ogloff, J. (1991). A comparison of insanity defense standards on juror decision making. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 509–531.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ogloff, J., Schweighofer, A., Turnbull, S., & Whittemore, K. (1992). Empirical research regarding the insanity defense: How much do we really know? In J. Ogloff (Ed.), Law and psychology: The broadening of the discipline (pp. 171–207). Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olson, J., & Zanna, M. (1993). Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology, 4, 117–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pasewark, R. (1981). Insanity plea: A review of the research literature. Journal of Psychiatry and Law, 9, 357–401.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pasewark, R., & Seidenzahl, D. (1979). Opinions concerning the insanity plea and criminality among patients. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 7, 199–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1986). Evidence evaluation in complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 242–258.

    Google Scholar 

  • Penrod, S., & Heuer, L. (1997). Tweaking commonsense: Assessing aids to jury decision making. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 3, 259–284.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perlin, M. (1994). The jurisprudence of the insanity defense. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Proctor, M. (1993). Measuring attitudes. In N. Gilbert (Ed), Researching social life. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, C., & Golding, S. (1991). The social construction of criminal responsibility and insanity. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 349–376.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, C., Golding, S., & Fincham, F. (1987). Implicit theories of criminal responsibility: Decision making and the insanity defense. Law and Human Behavior, 11, 207–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, D. (1991). Social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 42, 527–561.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silver, E., Circione, C., & Steadman, H. (1994). Demythologizing inaccurate perceptions of the insanity defense. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 63–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, R. (1967). The jury and the defense of insanity. Boston: Little, Brown & Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skeem, J. L., & Golding, S. L. (2001). Describing jurors’ personal conceptions of insanity and their relationship to case judgments. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7, 561–621.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skeem, J., Mulvey, E., & Grisso, T. (2003). Applicability of Traditional and Revised Models of Psychopathy to the Psychopathy Checklist: Screening Version (PCL:SV). Psychological Assessment, 15, 41–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sklansky, J. (1996). Right to a jury trial. [Special Issue: 25th Annual Review of Criminal Procedure]. The Georgetown Law Journal, 84, 1139–1160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, V. (1991). Prototypes in the courtroom: Lay representations of legal concepts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 220–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, V. (1993). When prior knowledge and law collide: Helping jurors use the law. Law and Human Behavior, 17(5), 507–536.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stalans, L. (1993). Citizens’ crime stereotypes, biased recall and punishment preferences in abstract cases: The educative role of interpersonal sources. Law and Human Behavior, 17, 451–470.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tabachnik, B., & Fidell, L. (1996). Using multivariate statistics (3rd ed.). New York: HarperCollins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, S., & Dear, M. (1981). Scaling community attitudes toward the mentally ill. Schizoprhenia Bulletin, 7, 225–240.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tygart, C. (1992). Public acceptance/rejection of insanity-mental illness legal defenses for defendants in criminal homicide cases. The Journal of Psychiatry and Law, Fall, 375–389.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ullman, J. (1996). Structural equation modeling. In B. Tabachnik & L. Fidell (Eds.), Using multivariate statistics. (pp. 709–811). New York: Harper Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  • United States Census Bureau. (2000). Census 2000 Redistricting Data (Public Law 94–171). Retrieved March 1, 2003, Available from http://www.census.gov/support/PLData.html.

  • Utah Department of Employment Security. (1998). County populations in Utah by race and Hispanic origin: 1980, 1990, and provisional 1994 estimates [On-line]. Available from http://www.governor.state.ut.us/dea/publications/racetab.html.

  • Utah Population Estimates Committee. (1998). Utah population estimates by county: 1980 to 1997. Salt Lake City, UT: Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget.

  • Wainwright v. Witt (1985). 105 S.Ct. 844.

  • Williams, E. (1959). The comparison of regression variables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 21, 296–399.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolff, G., Pathare, S., Craig, T., & Leff, J. (1996). Community attitudes to mental illness. British Journal of Psychiatry, 168, 183–190.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Nevada

    Jennifer L. Skeem, Jennifer Eno Louden & Jennee Evans

Authors
  1. Jennifer L. Skeem
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jennifer Eno Louden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jennee Evans
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jennifer L. Skeem.

About this article

Cite this article

Skeem, J.L., Louden, J.E. & Evans, J. Venirepersons’s Attitudes Toward the Insanity Defense: Developing, Refining, and Validating a Scale. Law Hum Behav 28, 623–648 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-004-0487-7

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-004-0487-7

Search

Navigation