Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for more information

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Criminal Justice and Behavior
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by HOMANT, R. J.
Right arrow Articles by KENNEDY, D. B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Subjective Factors in the Judgment of Insanity

ROBERT J. HOMANT

University of Detroit

DANIEL B. KENNEDY

University of Detroit

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.

Criminal Justice and Behavior, Vol. 14, No. 1, 38-61 (1987)
DOI: 10.1177/0093854887014001005
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?