The insanity defense is one of the most controversial legal defenses in the U.S. legal system, as demonstrated through the constantly evolving insanity laws and the public response to insanity cases. There is extensive evidence to suggest that juror attitudes, preconceived notions, and case-relevant biases and beliefs affect their judgments in insanity defense cases. Research provides strong support for the finding that negative attitudes toward the insanity defense have a robust effect on mock jurors’ verdict decisions. Additionally, there is evidence that jurors, rather than relying on instructions and legal definitions, tend to rely on their own commonsense notions of what is considered sane and insane and to use these in determining their verdicts. At the same time, a number of other factors, such as the severity of the crime, characteristics of the perpetrator, and knowledge levels, may moderate the relationship between attitude and verdict, and these factors warrant further investigation. This entry briefly examines the evolution of insanity law, jurors’ attitudes to and knowledge of the insanity defense, the influences on jurors’ insanity verdicts, and the role of experts in insanity trials.
当被告患有精神疾病会干扰其刑事责任能力时,可以在刑事案件中提出精神错乱的辩护。精神错乱辩护的基础概念是,当他或她缺乏由于精神疾病而缺乏形成意图的能力时,要对犯罪负责的人从根本上是不公平的。从1700年代的“野兽”测试开始,某些被告因其精神状态而不应对其行为负责的想法已经建立了几个世纪。从那时起,法律一直在努力制定有关什么构成精神错乱的准则。在这些情况下,这导致了不断发展的标准。
精神错乱的不断变化的标准反映了防御的困难本质。M'Naghten测试成立于1843年,认为被告如果他们不能说他们的行为是错误的,则被告对他们的行为不承担任何责任。此测试随后受到批评,因为它非常强调对与错的认知方面,但未能考虑被告的自愿控制问题。M'naghten测试经历了许多变化,每次都改变了精神错乱的认知和意志力基础之间的重点,并改变了这些概念的定义。目前正在使用的一些标准包括M'naghten测试;M'naghten测试,并给被告具有“不可抗拒的冲动”的津贴;达勒姆或“产品”规则,仅要求犯罪是精神疾病的产物;美国法律研究所的标准包括精神错乱的认知和自愿原因,以及1984年的《精神错乱国防改革法》,该法仅包括认知因素,要求精神疾病严重。标准中的许多变化都是为了回应高度公开的精神错乱案件,在这种情况下,公众对判决不利地看待。这些案件中最有影响力的是约翰·欣克利(John Hinkley)试图暗杀里根总统的审判。
Juror Decision Making in Insanity Cases
上述法律的变化导致了多个精神错乱标准,这提出了一个问题,即陪审员将如何应对这些变化以及他们是否能够区分它们。陪审员应在任何特定的精神错乱案件中使用的标准通过陪审团指示将其交付给陪审员。研究调查了陪审团指示中提出的这些各种标准的回应。这项研究表明,陪审团决策并不受陪审团指示中使用的标准或变化的实质性影响。此外,得到指示的陪审员和没有指示的人似乎在决策上没有显着差异。是否存在标准,如果是的,则使用哪种标准对陪审员的最终决策产生影响很小,即使标准基于截然不同的法律概念。这不应被解释为意味着陪审员在审议时不会考虑指示,也不表明他们没有认真对待自己的职责。一些学者认为,陪审员根据对精神疾病和辩护本身的常识理解来解释精神错乱案件。诺曼·芬克尔(Norman Finkel,1988)和其他人认为陪审员可能不会区分各种标准,因为他们在判断辩护的适当性时依靠自己对精神错乱的解释。
如果陪审员在精神错乱案件中基于对辩护的理解的一部分理解,那么确定这种常识性的理解很重要。迈克尔·珀林(Michael Perlin)广泛地撰写了有关精神错乱案件决策中可能依赖的常见误解。他确定了八个“神话”,这些“神话”推动了公众对精神错乱的辩护的看法。这些神话包括相信精神错乱的辩护被过度使用,恳求精神错乱的被告通常是假装的,精神错乱的辩护几乎完全在涉及暴力犯罪的情况下使用,而不是因精神错乱而认罪(NGRI)是一种刑事策略。辩护律师要使客户无罪释放,对恳求精神错乱的被告没有风险,涉及NGRI辩护的审判几乎总是以“专家的斗争”为特色,NGRI无罪释放者的拘留时间比被告被定罪的被告要少得多。同样的罪行和NGRI无罪释放者很快被释放。珀林的神话是公共领域中存在的关于精神错乱的缺陷知识的例子。这些神话中的每一个都被多个来源的经验发现驳斥。但是,这种错误信息有可能对陪审员在特定案件中对精神错乱的考虑产生负面影响。
In addition to the faulty knowledge that prospective jurors might have, jurors may also have preexisting attitudes about the insanity defense that could affect their decision making. Surveys as well as experimental studies have revealed that people hold strong negative attitudes toward this defense. Many prospective jurors report viewing the insanity defense as a loophole in the legal system through which dangerous mentally ill people could reenter society or by which truly guilty criminals who were not mentally ill could be acquitted. In addition, people perceive the insanity defense as one that is too frequently used as well as abused. Research also indicates that negative attitudes about mental illness are largely fueled by this misinformation about mental illness. For example, people have a tendency to overestimate the number of defendants who plead insanity and who are acquitted by reason of insanity, while they tend to underestimate the period of confinement for insanity acquittees. The relationship between insanity knowledge and attitudes is such that more accurate knowledge is related to more favorable attitudes.
负面态度已显示出降低陪审员考虑和做出NGRI判决的意愿。研究表明,对精神疾病和精神错乱的态度对模拟陪审员在精神错乱案件中的判决产生重大影响,甚至比案件事实更重要。具有负面态度的陪审员对NGRI判决的可能性较小。对死刑的态度也与精神错乱案件的决策有关。对死刑的积极态度具有积极态度的陪审员是面向犯罪控制的,倾向于对精神错乱辩护产生负面态度,并且显着较少愿意做出NGRI判决。
Another focus of research on the origins of potential jurors’ beliefs about the insanity defense has been in the study of insanity prototypes, or the concept of the typical insanity defendant. In several prototype studies, researchers have found that jurors’ notions of insanity included extreme impairments at the time of the offense as well as extreme psychosis. They tended to inflate symptoms of psychosis, as well as portray the offender as extremely violent. These prototypes could produce expectations about defendants in insanity trials that could in turn affect decision making, although there has been little research on this phenomenon.
Once a trial in which insanity is claimed begins, it is the responsibility of the jurors to assess the evidence presented to them and the viability of the insanity defense in that case. Research has investigated the impact of varying case facts on decision making in insanity cases. Mock jurors seem to construe case information differently depending on their prior beliefs and attitudes. As noted above, there is a tendency for jurors in insanity defense cases to rely more on their own notions of insanity than on the facts of the case. The type of mental illness can be influential, and much research has focused on schizophrenic defendants. Some case facts are also influential in insanity verdicts. For example, some research has found that defendants who had been more reckless, committed more gruesome crimes, and behaved with premeditation were found guilty more often.
研究还调查了陪审员本身的个人特征的影响。已经检查了与精神疾病(通过个人经历或亲戚或朋友的接触)的重要性,结果不同。例如,与精神疾病的人接触对对精神疾病的态度有一些积极的影响。研究表明,与患有抑郁症或精神病患者直接互动的大学生对这些疾病的原因更加积极。另一方面,一些研究发现,患有精神疾病的人不太接受其他患有精神疾病的人。还发现陪审员性别在有限的研究中对判决产生影响。有一些迹象表明,女性可能比精神错乱的辩护和精神疾病的男性更受接受,这是确定刑事责任的因素。
专家证人和精神错乱的辩护
专家证词通常会在被告提出精神错乱的审判中提供。典型的成功精神错乱要求通过专家证词表现出重大的精神疾病或损害。专家在精神错乱中的作用在某种程度上是独一无二的。关于专家心理证词在精神错乱辩护试验中的作用一直存在着重大争议,有些人主张在这些情况下取消专家。法律对精神错乱试验的专家施加了许多限制。在大多数情况下,心理学家证明了被告的诊断以及与该诊断相关的症状,他们就被告了解对与错之间的差异的能力发表了意见。但是,在欣克利案之后,对联邦证据规则进行了修改,以禁止对最终问题的专家心理健康证词 - 无论是否在涉嫌犯罪时,被告是理智的还是疯狂的。这一决定留给了事实的三角。有限的研究研究了一般或最终意见证词对陪审员决策的影响。一个一致的发现是,专家提出的最终意见对决策没有重大影响,这与他们禁止的问题相反。
参考:
- Finkel,N。J.(1988)。审判的精神错乱。纽约:全体出版社。
- Hans, V. P., & Slater, D. (1984). “Plain crazy”: Lay definitions of legal insanity. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 7, 105-114.
- Perlin,M。L.(1996)。精神错乱:解构神话和重建法学。在B. D. Sales&D。Shuman(编辑)中,法律,心理健康和精神障碍(第341-359页)。加利福尼亚州贝尔蒙特:汤姆森·布鲁克斯/科尔。
- Poulson, R. L., Braithwaite, R. L., & Brondino, M. J. (1997). Mock jurors’ insanity defense verdict selections: The role of evidence, attitudes, and verdict options. Journal of SocialBehavior & Personality, 12, 743-758.
- Zapf,P。A.,Golding,S.L。,&Roesch,R。(2006)。刑事责任和精神错乱的辩护。在I. B. Weiner和A. K. Hess(编辑)中,法医心理学手册(第3版,第332-363页)。新泽西州霍博肯:威利。
返回概述Trial Consulting在法医心理学。