Abstract
In insanity cases, although the defendant's eventual punishment is legally irrelevant to the jury's decision, it may be psychologically relevant. In this three-part mixed-methods study, Canadian jury eligible participants (N = 83) read a fictional murder case involving an insanity claim, then took part in 45-min deliberations. Findings showed that mock jurors who were generally favourable towards punishment had a lower frequency of utterances that supported the Defence's case. A qualitative description of keyword flagged utterances also demonstrated that mock jurors relied on moral intuitions about authority, harm, and fairness in justifying their positions. These findings may have application in crafting effective Judge's instructions and lawyer's opening statements.
Highlights
The Canadian legal system takes a clear stance on the issue of criminal culpability and mental disorder1
Prohibitive utilitarianism showed a weak negative relationship with strict liability only, having no significant linear association with injustice and danger. Those higher in the tendency to focus on the positive societal impact of punishment were less likely to believe that mental disorder is irrelevant to a crime, but no less likely to believe the insanity defence is misused or threatens public safety
The case appears to be somewhat guilt leaning, 2The Punishment Orientation Questionnaire (POQ) and Insanity Defence Attitudes-Revised Scale (IDA-R) were counterbalanced, but there were no significant differences in reported analyses on the basis of presentation order
Summary
The Canadian legal system takes a clear stance on the issue of criminal culpability and mental disorder. A person may be found Not Criminally Responsible on Account of Mental Disorder (NCRMD) if the party raising the issue can prove it is more likely than not that, during the crime, the defendant had a mental disorder that precluded a guilty mind. Rather than traditional punishment via the criminal justice system, a successful NCRMD claim will result in psychiatric care or in some cases release This provision is in tension with a longstanding culture of hostility towards the insanity defence in Canada (Maeder et al, 2015) and the United States (Hans, 1986). We expected that prohibitive retributivism and utilitarianism would be associated with decreased likelihood of a guilty verdict and more favourable insanity defence attitudes
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
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 call
