Jury selection in insanity defense cases

Abstract

In three studies legal authoritarianism, attitudes toward psychiatrists, and attitudes toward the insanity defense were examined as predictors of conviction-proneness in insanity defense cases. In Study 1 subjects responded to a juror selection survey containing a brief version of a case, a verdict form, and measures of the constructs mentioned above. In Studies 2 and 3 subjects completed measures of the relevant constructs, viewed a videotaped enactment of an insanity defense case, and rendered verdicts. The three studies converge on the conclusion that legal authoritarianism, attitudes toward psychiatrists, and attitudes toward the insanity defense reliably predict conviction-proneness. In addition, Study 2 compares two separate measures of legal authoritarianism and Study 3 examines the reliability and factor structure of a newly devised instrument for assessing attitudes toward psychiatrists and the insanity defense. The implications of these findings for current jury selection procedures are discussed.