Addressing Bias and Misunderstanding in Insanity Defense Cases with Brief Juror Education
2. SPECIFIC AIMS
The insanity plea is a legal term deeming individuals not criminally responsible due to a mental disorder (Math et al., 2015). In many cases, those truly suffering from a mental disorder are not able to get the help they deserve due to jury bias. Exploring the impact a jury has on a case, especially involving the insanity defense, is crucial, as it dives into the importance of justice and fairness within our legal system. Having an individual's fate be determined by those who do not understand the meaning of the insanity defense, is at odds with the standards of fairness the criminal justice system fights for.
As humans there are underlying factors that create people’s values, morals, and beliefs. There is ultimately no way to ensure that someone is bias-free. Through research, it has been found that averaging out the bias between all jurors is not possible, as there are pre-trial, cognitive, and external factor biases that can sway a juror throughout the trial (Curley et al., 2022). With this, there is no exact way that someone will be unbiased, which explains how biases will ultimately play a role in a not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) case. In combination with this, many do not trust expert witness testimonies from mental health professionals leading to a negative perception of the insanity defense (Cutler et al., 1992; Faulstich, 1984). With this, jurors find that expert testimony given by the defense can positively affect their decision-making rather than it being given from the prosecution’s expert testimony (Poulson et al., 1997). Confirmation bias explains these ideas, as humans will favor information that aligns with their own beliefs or values (Hudachek & Quigley-McBride, 2022).
The intersectionality of defendant characteristics, societal perceptions, and jury selection procedures may contribute to disparities in verdicts and legal outcomes, raising questions about the fairness of the legal process. Investigating psychological dimensions of jury bias, regarding the insanity plea, will provide a clear explanation of why changes need to be made in the legal system to establish a fair and equal trial. The proposed study intends to determine whether jury participant's beliefs about the insanity defense are based on previous biases or a lack of knowledge. Four scales/questionaries will be used to determine pre-trial bias, attitudes towards mental illness and the insanity defense by using the Pre-Trial Juror Attitude Questionnaire (PJAQ), Juror Bias Scale (JBS), Generic Scale for Public Health Surveillance of Mental Illness Associated Stigma (SAMHSA-CDC), and Insanity Defense Attitude- revised (IDA-R), along with an informative explanation of what the insanity defense is before reading the given trial for the experiment (Curley et al., 2022).
Aim 1: To measure whether confirmation bias can be avoided with juror education, including a thorough explanation of the insanity defense. Mock jurors’ bias will be measured using the Pre-Trial Juror Attitude Questionnaire (PJAQ) and the Juror Bias Scale (JBS).
Hypothesis 1: Proper education and comprehensive explanation of the entirety of the insanity defense, prior to a case, will result in a measurable reduction in biases.
3. RESEARCH STRATEGY
A. Significance
Every person who goes through the criminal justice
system has the right to a fair trial. All are presumed
innocent until proven guilty. However, problems arise
when jury members’ pre-existing biases influence their
evaluation of evidence. All human beings have natural
biases based on multiple factors (Curley et al., 2022).
Although it is an attorney's job to choose a jury of
unbiased individuals, it is difficult to predict how biases
will emerge as the trial continues. Particularly with an
NGRI trial, jurors may have confirmation bias toward any
expert witnesses brought into the case (Cutler et al.,
1992; Faulstich, 1984). Along with this, jurors are
unaware of what the insanity defense may mean for a
mentally ill individual, as it is not a way to avoid jail
(Martin et al., 2022).
If attorneys can be aware of the possible bias their
jury may have, along with providing information on what
the insanity defense consists of, it will create a fair trial.
Using PJAQ and the JBS before jurors hear a case, allows
for the attorney to prepare the juror properly. If adequate
questionnaires and proper education on the insanity
defense are given before a trial, the combined strategies
can increase the possibility of a fair trial.
A1: Confirmation Bias
Hudachek and Quigley-McBride (2022) explain
that confirmation bias is an unpredictable trait within
humans that an attorney will not be able to detect. Not
only does it weigh in on jurors’ decision-making before
the trial begins, but it will continue to affect jurors’
decision-making as the trial goes on (Curley et al.,
2022). External factors, such as expert witnesses, will
already be disadvantaged in providing professional
opinions to the case as confirmation bias will take the
lead on the juror’s ultimate decision. Using the PJAQ and
JBS can educate legal professionals and jurors regarding
the effects biases have on their decision-making (Curley
et al., 2022).
A2: Education
Through research, it has been found that proper
education on a given subject can alter one’s beliefs and
possible stigmas surrounding it. Although biases can
truly never go away, providing someone with education
or background information pushes them to step away
from those biases (Curley et al., 2022; Mabry, 2022).
Specifically, with a NGRI case, providing information on
what mental illness looks like and how this is impacted
in jail, changed people’s beliefs (Mabry, 2022). Even the
smallest amount of education on a given subject can
provide a significant change to one’s beliefs.
A3: Jury Bias and Education in a NGRI Plea
It is important to find what the combination of
confirmation bias and proper education of the meaning
behind an NGRI plea will do for a defendant's trial.
Although confirmation bias is something that seems to
be difficult to change, proper measures can be used by
legal professionals to best predict what a bias may be
(Curley et al., 2022). These measures can be as simple
as providing the PJAQ and the JBS prior to a trail which
will then provide attorneys with a better understanding
of who their jury is (Curley et al., 2022). Following what
is found through the measures, jurors can be taught how
an NGRI plea may look. It has been found that when
given a pamphlet or brief description that provides
adequate information surrounding the meaning of NGRI,
it leads to a more accurate and bias free verdict from
jurors (Mabry, 2020). Providing that education prior to a
trial will ultimately lead to the defendant receiving their
right to a fair trial.
B. Innovation
The primary goal of the proposed research study is
to see if educating jurors before an NGRI trial can make
a difference in their decisions and ultimately aid in
finding a solution for legal professionals to prepare
jurors for a trial. This will then ensure the defendant
receives their right to a fair trial. The proposed study will
test jurors' bias by giving them the PJAQ and JBS before
reading an NGRI case as this will show any pre-trial bias
that may exist (Curley et al., 2022). Along with this, it will
test if educating jurors on what the NGRI is, will aid in
mitigating some of those pre-trial biases. It’s been
shown education on a subject before hearing about it,
will change the way someone perceives it (Mabry,
2020). To our current knowledge, there have not been
enough studies done that combine the levels of sorting
out pre-trial biases and education on a specific topic.
This study aims to fill the gaps between these two
important factors in a trial to ensure a trial that is fair to
the defendant.
C. Approach
C1: Overview
The design of the proposed study is a between-
subjects experimental design that uses two groups
belonging to either receiving education on the NGRI
defense before reading a trial or not receiving education
on the NGRI defense before reading a trial using Temple
University college students.
C2: Study Population
200 male and female participants with ages
ranging from 18 to 25 studying at Temple University as
either undergraduate or graduate students. We will
exclude those who do not fall in the age-range. Group 1
will consist of 100 participants (50 men and 50 women)
who will be receiving an explanation of what an NGRI
defense is before reading the provided case. Group 2
will consist of 100 participants (50 men and 50 women)
who will not be receiving any explanation of what an
NGRI defense is before reading the provided case. Both
groups will be taking the PJAQ and JBS read the same
case, and ask the same question of whether they
believe that the defendant should use the NGRI
defense.
C3: Procedure
Recruitment
Recruitment will come from students studying at
Temple University at either the undergraduate or
graduate level as long as they are in the age range. The
study will take place in person and done one-on-one.
Before we begin the study, each group will be debriefed
about the purposes of the study. We will then ask for
their informed consent with the option to leave. There
will be compensation for involvement in the study which
will be a $20 gift card of their choosing.
C4: Assessment
Assessment will be conducted by using 1
questionnaire, 3 scales, and 2 surveys. PJAQ and JBS
will be given to both groups after the consent form is
signed. Following this, the Generic Scale for Public
Health Surveillance of Mental Illness Associated Stigma
(SAMHSA-CDC) and Insanity Defense Attitude- revised
(IDA-R) will be given as well. Group 1 participants will
then be given an educational synopsis of what an NGRI
defense is to read as the experimenter reads it out loud.
They will then continue to read the given case. Group 2
participants will not be given the educational synopsis
and will begin the study by reading the given case. A
short survey consisting of questions to understand the
participants’ point of view on NGRI will be given to both
participants at the end of the study.
C5: Measures
Level of Pre-trial Bias
The level of pre-trial bias will be recorded before
reading the given trial by using the PJAQ and the JBS.
The PJAQ is made up of six constructs that pertain to the
criminal justice system while the JBS is a 17-item
questionnaire highlighting how participants feel about
conviction based on biases. Used together, these scales
can provide a prediction of one’s verdict (Curley et al.,
2022).
Perception of Mental Illness
The level of perceived mental illness will be
measured by using the SAMHSA-CDC scale. The scale
lays out ten statements surrounding mental illness and
asks participants to rate how much they agree with the
statement: “1” being they strongly agree and “5” being
they strongly disagree (Mabry, 2020). This scale will
provide a baseline for attorneys so they can ensure a
fair trial for their clients.
Attitude toward Insanity Defense
The attitude towards the insanity defense will be
measured by using the IDA-R survey. The survey will
provide twenty-two statements surrounding commonly
held opinions of the insanity defense. Each participant is
asked to rate how much they agree with the statement:
“1” being strongly disagree and “7” being strongly agree
(Mabry, 2020). This survey will provide an overview of
how jurors feel about the insanity defense.
Statistical Analysis
Basic analysis will come from conducting a two-
group MANOVA comparing verdicts and post-trial change
in bias.
D. Limitations
There is a possibility for limitations in this
proposed study. The analyses will not account for
gender, race, or socioeconomic differences. Along with
this, since the study will be a mock trial, jurors may not
feel the real-world pressures of an actual court room.
Lastly, in a real trial, jurors have the opportunity to
deliberate together to come to a verdict, but as this is a
mock trial, participants in the study will not have this
opportunity.
References
Curley, L. J., Munro, J, & Dror, I. E. (2022). Cognitive and human factors in legal layperson decision making: Sources of bias in juror decision making. Medicine, Science, and the Law, 62(3), 206-215. https://doi.org/10.1177/00258024221080655
Cutler, B. L., Moran, G., & Narby, D. J. (1992). Jury selection in insanity defense cases. Journal of Research in Personality, 26(2), 165-182. https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-6566(92)90052-6
Faulstich, M. E. (1984). Effects upon social perceptions of the insanity plea. Psychological
Reports, 55, 183-187. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1984.55.1.183
Hudachek, L., & Quigley-McBride, A. (2022). Juror perceptions of opposing expert forensic psychologists: Preexisting attitudes, confirmation bias, and belief perseverance. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 28(2), 213-225. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000334
Mabry, M.E. (2020). Will providing education to jurors increase not guilty by reason of insanity plea acceptance? (Publication No. 28094083) [Doctoral Dissertation, Alliant International University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
Martin, S., Charette, Y., Leclerc, C., Seto, M. C., Nicholls, T. L., & Crocker, A. G. (2022). Not a “Get out of jail free card”: Comparing the legal supervision of persons found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder and convicted offenders. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 12, 775480. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2021.775480
Math, S. B., Kumar, C. N., & Moirangthem, S. (2015). Insanity defense: Past, present, and future. Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine, 37(4), 381-387. https://doi.org/10.4103/0253-7176.168559
Poulson, R. L., Braithwaite, R. L., Brondino, M. J., & Wuensch, K. L. (1997). Mock jurors’ insanity defense verdict selections: The role of evidence, attitudes, and verdict options. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 12(3), 743-758.