Full metadata
Title
A Comparison of Three Types of Insanity Defenses on Juror Decision-Making
Description
This study compared mock jurors' verdict decisions regarding three different insanity defenses that are used across jurisdictions in the United States' Criminal Justice System. Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity (NGRI), Guilty Except Insane (GEI) and Guilty But Mentally Ill (GBMI) all have different effects on the defendant and on the system, but little is known about how jurors' will use these different verdicts. This study used a vignette and online survey delivered through MTurk to see which of the three verdicts, if rendered, would be more preferable by the mock jurors. It was predicted that GEI (a "compromise" verdict with elements from both NGRI and GBMI) would be more favorable than NGRI (the most lenient) but less favorable that GBMI (the strictest). However, the findings indicated that lay people cannot tell the difference between the three insanity verdicts: an equal proportion of mock jurors in each condition chose the relevant insanity verdict. Limitations, implications, and future directions are discussed.
Date Created
2016-12
Contributors
- Siso, Cassidy Brooke (Author)
- Neal, Tess M.S. (Thesis director)
- Schweitzer, Nick (Committee member)
- School of Criminology and Criminal Justice (Contributor)
- Hugh Downs School of Human Communication (Contributor)
- Department of Psychology (Contributor)
- Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Topical Subject
Resource Type
Extent
20 pages
Language
eng
Copyright Statement
In Copyright
Primary Member of
Series
Academic Year 2016-2017
Handle
https://hdl.handle.net/2286/R.I.42664
Level of coding
minimal
Cataloging Standards
System Created
- 2017-10-30 02:50:58
System Modified
- 2021-08-11 04:09:57
- 3 years 3 months ago
Additional Formats