Describes a court trial for murder in which the jury rejected the defense plea of not guilty by reason of insanity. It is argued that the jury was misled by 2 factors in reaching its verdict: (1) the jury wanted to punish the defendant because of the brutality of the crime and therefore agreed with testimony that helped them resolve uncertainties about the defendant's insanity; and (2) a witness for the prosecution confused the differences between delusions and hallucinations. It is suggested that (1) most jurors lack an understanding of the varieties of behavioral responses that are possible in criminal behavior and therefore should be educated on the issues of mental illness and the insanity defense, and (2) court-appointed psychiatrists as expert witnesses replace the current adversary process. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)
Language: en
", language="en", issn="0733-1290", doi="", url="http://dx.doi.org/" }