Graduation Year
2016
Document Type
Dissertation
Degree
Ph.D.
Degree Name
Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.)
Degree Granting Department
Criminology
Major Professor
John Cochran, Ph.D.
Co-Major Professor
Shayne Jones, Ph.D.
Committee Member
Wesley Jennings, Ph.D.
Committee Member
Ojmarrh Mitchell, Ph.D.
Keywords
juror decision-making, insanity defense, dispositional consequences, attitudes
Abstract
In response to public opposition to the insanity defense, the Guilty But Mentally Ill(GBMI) verdict was enacted with the intention of limiting the number of insanity acquittals and alleviating the public’s concerns. Prior research suggests, however, that many jurors are making verdict decisions with limited knowledge of the dispositional consequences of the GBMI and NGRI verdicts. Further, jurors may erroneously assume that the GBMI verdict is a compromise between a NGRI and guilty verdict, which mitigates punishment. In reality, the dispositional consequences of a GBMI verdict are equivalent to or more restrictive than a guilty verdict. The current study examined the impact of informing jurors of the dispositional consequences of the GBMI and NGRI verdicts. In addition, it explores whether mock jurors’ attitudes toward the insanity defense, individuals with mental illness, and perceptions of the defendant’s dangerousness strengthens or attenuates the impact of informing mock jurors of dispositional consequences. Participants (N = 488) read a case summary of an apparently mentally ill male defendant charged with first-degree murder. Half of the participants were informed of the dispositional consequences of GBMI and NGRI verdicts, while the other half of participants received no such information. Then, they were asked to choose individual verdicts and complete a questionnaire that assessed attitudes toward the insanity defense, attitudes toward individuals with mental illness, and perceptions of the defendant’s dangerousness. Results indicate that informing participants of dispositional consequences of the GBMI and NGRI verdicts increases the likelihood that the NGRI verdict is selected over the GBMI verdict. In addition, participants who had more favorable attitudes toward the insanity defense and perceived the defendant as less dangerous selected the NGRI verdict over the GBMI verdict at an even higher rate when they were informed of dispositional consequences. The implications for educating jurors in trials that include the GBMI verdict option are discussed.
Scholar Commons Citation
Cotrone, Erin Elizabeth, "The Guilty But Mentally Ill Verdict: Assessing the Impact of Informing Jurors of Verdict Consequences" (2016). USF Tampa Graduate Theses and Dissertations.
https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/etd/6486
