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.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
