NGRI revisited: Venirepersons' attitudes toward the insanity defense

Journal of Applied Social Psychology

Volumn 36, Issue 8, 2006, Pages 1833-1847

  Butler, Brooke ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA SARASOTA MANATEE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33745099876     PISSN: 00219029     EISSN: 15591816     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.0021-9029.2006.00084.x     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Borum, R., & Fulero, S. M. (1999). Empirical research on the insanity defense and attempted reforms: Evidence toward informed policy. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 375-394.
2. Butler, B., & Wasserman, A. W. (2006). The role of death qualification in venirepersons' attitudes toward the insanity defense. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, (7), 1744-1757.
3. Cutler, B. L., Moran, G., & Narby, D. J. (1992). Jury selection in insanity defense cases. Journal of Research in Personality, 26, 165-182.
4. Ellsworth, P. C., Bukaty, R. M., Cowan, C. L., & Thompson, W. C. (1984). The death-qualified jury and the insanity defense. Law and Human Behavior, 8, 81-93.
5. Elwork, A., Sales, B. D., & Alfini, J. (1982). Making jury instructions understandable. Charlottesville, VA: Michie/Bobbs-Merrill.
6. Finkel, N. J. (1988). Maligning and misconstruing jurors' insanity verdicts: A rebuttal. Forensic Reports, 1, 97-124.
7. Finkel, N. (1989). The Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984: Much ado about nothing. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 7, 403-419.
8. Finkel, N. J., & Handel, S. F. (1989). How jurors construe "insanity." Law and Human Behavior, 13, 41-59.
9. Luginbuhl, J. (1992). Comprehension of judges' instructions in the penalty phase of a capital trial: Focus on mitigating circumstances. Law and Human Behavior, 16, 203-218.
10. McCutcheon, L. E., & McCutcheon, L. E. (1994). Not guilty by reason of insanity: Getting it right or perpetuating the myths? Psychological Reports, 74, 764-766.
11. Melton, G. B., Petrila, J., Poythress, J., & Slobogin, C. (1987). Psychological evaluations for the courts: A handbook for mental health professionals and lawyers. New York: Guilford.
12. Ogloff, J. R. P., Schweighofer, A., Turnbull, S., & Whittemore, K. (1992). Empirical research and the insanity defense: How much do we know? In J. R. P. Ogloff (Ed.), Psychology and law: The broadening of the discipline (pp. 171-210). Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.
13. Regina v. McNaughton, 10 Cl. and F. 200, 8 Eng. Rep. 718 (1843).
14. Roberts, C. F., & Golding, S. L. (1991). The social construction of criminal responsibility and insanity. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 349-376.
15. Roberts, C. F., Golding, S. L., & Fincham, F. D. (1987). Implicit theories of criminal responsibility. Law and Human Behavior, 11, 207-232.
16. Roberts, C. F., Sargent, E. L., & Chan, A. S. (1993). Verdict selection processes in insanity cases: Juror construals and the effects of guilty but mentally ill instructions. Law and Human Behavior, 17, 261-275.
17. U.S. v. Brawner, 471 F.2d 969 (D.C. Cir 1972).
18. U.S. v. Hinckley, 525 F. Supp. 1342 (D.C. 1981).
19. Wheatman, S. R., & Shaffer, D. R. (2001). On finding for defendants who plead insanity: The crucial impact of dispositional instructions and opportunity to deliberate. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 167-183.
20. White, L. T. (1987). The mental illness defense in the capital penalty hearing. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 5(4), 411-421.
21. Wiener, R. L., Prichard, C. C., & Weston, M. (1995). Comprehensibility of approved jury instructions in capital murder cases. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 455-467.