University of Southern Mississippi.
1099-0798/asset/BSL_left.gif?v=1&s=44de18487a735c420d1f360e33785735be2edbf3)
Research Article
Article first published online: 8 MAR 2008
DOI: 10.1002/bsl.797
Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Issue
1099-0798/asset/cover.gif?v=1&s=27cb3cb3b3e789b2519ed5b84bdb198bf5ddfb33 "Behavioral Sciences & the Law")
Behavioral Sciences & the Law
Special Issue: International Perspectives on Brain Imaging and the Law
Volume 26, Issue 1, pages 85–97, January/February 2008
Additional Information
How to Cite
Gurley, J. R. and Marcus, D. K. (2008), The effects of neuroimaging and brain injury on insanity defenses. Behav. Sci. Law, 26: 85–97. doi: 10.1002/bsl.797
- †
The authors would like to thank Marcus Boccaccini and Daniel Murrie for comments on earlier drafts of this manuscript. This research was conducted in partial fulfillment of a Master s Degree for Jessica R. Gurley.
- ‡
Research was previously presented at the Annual Convention of the American Psychology-Law Society in La Jolla, CA.
- §
University of Southern Mississippi.
Publication History
- Issue published online: 8 MAR 2008
- Article first published online: 8 MAR 2008
- Abstract
- References
- Cited By
Abstract
Although neurological evidence is used with increasing frequency in criminal trials, there is limited research examining the effects that this evidence has on juror decision-making in insanity trials. Participants (396) were presented with a case summary and psychological testimony and asked to render either a verdict of guilty or not guilty by reason of insanity in a 2 (psychosis or psychopathy) × (presence or absence of an MRI indicating a brain lesion) × (presence or absence of testimony describing a car accident that caused injury to the brain) factorial design. Defendants diagnosed with a psychotic disorder, defendants who could demonstrate the existence of a brain lesion via MRI, and defendants who had a history of brain injury were more likely to be found not guilty by reason of insanity than those defendants who did not present any neurological testimony. Participants who reported they were more influenced by the psychological and neurological testimony were almost six times more likely to render a verdict of NGRI than those participants who reported that the psychological and neurological testimony and evidence did not influence their decision regarding verdict. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.