Citation

Homant RJ, Kennedy DB. Crim. Justice Behav. 1987; 14(1): 38-61.

Copyright

(Copyright © 1987, SAGE Publishing)

DOI

10.1177/0093854887014001005

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

This research attempts to account for the variations in expert witnesses' judgments of insanity in a particular case. Three versions of a hypothetical insanity-defense case called Albert were randomly distributed to a sample of 1,002 psychiatrists and clinical psychologists, with usable returns being received from 262 subjects. A favorable opinion of Albert's insanity defense was found to correlate with being a psychiatrist, having a liberal ideology, being in favor of the insanity defense in general, and having received the "neutral," as opposed to the "sympathetic" or "unsympathetic," version of the case. A post hoc analysis also found that coming from a state that placed the burden of proof on the prosecution was associated with a favorable opinion of Albert's insanity defense. Taken together these variables accounted for 42% of the nonerror variance in opinions of Albert's insanity defense.

Language: en