Murder Mitigation in the Fifty-Two American Jurisdictions: A Case Study in Doctrinal Interrelation Analysis

Robinson, Paul H.

doi:10.2139/ssrn.2419475

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the United Kingdom, insanity is currently decided based on rationality only (The McNaughten Rule), so only defendants with rationality defects are excused and those whose defence rests on lack of control are deemed ineligible for a NGRI verdict. In the United States, 21 states use the McNaughten Rule (based exclusively on the defendant's judged rationality), 16 states and the District of Columbia use the Model Penal Code, a test based on deficits in both rationality and control, 8 states and the federal system follow an adaptation of the Model Penal Code in which the defence is allowed only for cognitive dysfunction when the defendant is unable to understand the criminality of his conduct, and 6 states have abolished any form of the insanity defence (Robinson, 2014). In addition, since 1982, 12 states have adopted the guilty but mentally ill verdict (GBMI).…”

Section: Current Insanity Standards-rationality and Control Testsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The McNaughten+ standard may appear similar to the current defence of guilty but mentally ill utilised in some U.S. states (for example, Alaska, Arizona, and Georgia) (see Robinson, 2014), but focused specifically on lack of impulse control. However, the fact that it recognises control as a partial excuse (partially excusing the action rather than simply acknowledging mental illness) should avoid problems associated with the guilty but mentally ill verdict, where defendants are typically assigned longer sentences and do not receive any treatment (Desmond & Lenz, 2010).…”

Section: Proportion Of Guilty Verdicts and Accuracy Of Characterisationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Unpacking insanity defence standards: An experimental study of rationality and control tests in criminal law

Helm

Ceci

Burd

2016

The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study investigated the impact of different legal standards on mock juror decisions concerning whether a defendant was guilty or not guilty by reason of insanity. Undergraduate students (N = 477) read a simulated case summary involving a murder case and were asked to make an insanity determination. The cases differed in terms of the condition of the defendant (rationality deficit or control deficit) and the legal standard given to the jurors to make the determination (Model Penal Code, McNaughten or McNaughten plus a separate control determination). The effects of these variables on the insanity determination were investigated. Jurors also completed questionnaires measuring individualism and hierarchy attitudes and perceptions of facts in the case. Results indicate that under current insanity standards jurors do not distinguish between defendants with rationality deficits and defendants with control deficits regardless of whether the legal standard requires them to do so. Even defendants who lacked control were found guilty at equal rates under a legal standard excusing rationality deficits only and a legal standard excluding control and rationality deficits. This was improved by adding a control test as a partial defence, to be determined after a rationality determination. Implications for the insanity defence in the Criminal Justice System are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Current Insanity Standards-rationality and Control Testsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Proportion Of Guilty Verdicts and Accuracy Of Characterisationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Unpacking insanity defence standards: An experimental study of rationality and control tests in criminal law

Helm

Ceci

Burd

2016

The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The American Criminal Code: General Defenses

Robinson¹,

Kussmaul²,

Stoddard³

et al. 2015

Journal of Legal Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There are fifty-two bodies of criminal law in the USA. Each stakes out often diverse positions on a range of issues. This article defines the "American rule" for each of the issues relating to general defenses, a first contribution toward creating an "American Criminal Code".The article is the result of a several-year research project examining every issue relating to justification, excuse, and nonexculpatory defenses. It determines the majority American position among the fifty-two jurisdictions, and formulates statutory language for each defense that reflects that majority rule. The article also compares and contrasts the majority position to significant minority positions, to the Model Penal Code, and to the National Commission's proposed code.Using these results, in focusing on the most controversial justification defense, Defense of Persons, the article then compares patterns among the states on legal issues with a wide range of other variables-such as state population, racial characteristics, violent crime rates, and gun ownership-highlighting many interesting correlations. Applying this kind of doctrinal correlation analysis to all of the project's existing data would be a major undertaking. The goal here is to show how such analysis can be done, and how interesting the revealed patterns can be.American criminal codes (ACCs) are in many ways the most advanced in the world. With three-quarters of them based in large part

show abstract

Murder Mitigation in the Fifty-Two American Jurisdictions: A Case Study in Doctrinal Interrelation Analysis

Cited by 2 publications

References 33 publications

Unpacking insanity defence standards: An experimental study of rationality and control tests in criminal law

Unpacking insanity defence standards: An experimental study of rationality and control tests in criminal law

The American Criminal Code: General Defenses

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About