The impact of mental health evidence on support for capital punishment: are defendants labeled psychopathic considered more deserving of death?
- 16 September 2005
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wiley in Behavioral Sciences & the Law
- Vol. 23 (5) , 603-625
- https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.660
Abstract
Controversy surrounds the use of the Hare Psychopathy Checklist—Revised (Hare, 1991 , 2003 ) in capital murder cases, where it has been introduced to support prosecution claims that a defendant represents a “continuing threat to society”. Although widely presumed to have a prejudicial impact (e.g., American Psychological Association, 2004 ), little is known about how the lay public reacts to data derived from ostensibly stigmatizing assessment instruments such as the PCL-R. The present study examined the effect of psychopathy data on layperson attitudes by having 203 undergraduates review a capital murder case where the results of the defendant's psychological evaluation were experimentally manipulated. When expert testimony described the defendant as psychopathic, a much larger percentage of participants supported a death sentence (60%) than when testimony indicated that he was psychotic (30%) or not mentally disordered (38%). Interestingly, participant ratings of how psychopathic they perceived the defendant to be—regardless of the testimony condition to which they had been assigned—also predicted support for a death sentence. Given the limited probative value of the PCL-R in capital cases and the prejudicial nature of the effects noted in this study, we recommend that forensic examiners avoid using it in these trials. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Keywords
This publication has 53 references indexed in Scilit:
- Predictions of Future Dangerousness in Capital Murder Trials: Is It Time to "Disinvent the Wheel?"Law and Human Behavior, 2005
- Juror decision‐making in a mock sexually violent predator trial: gender differences in the impact of divergent types of expert testimonyBehavioral Sciences & the Law, 2003
- The effects of clinical and scientific expert testimony on juror decision making in capital sentencing.Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 2001
- Don't Confuse me with the FactsCriminal Justice and Behavior, 1999
- Clarifying life and death matters: An analysis of instructional comprehension and penalty phase closing arguments.Law and Human Behavior, 1997
- Illuminations and shadows from jury simulations.Law and Human Behavior, 1997
- Jurors' comprehension of sentencing instructions: A test of the death penalty process in TennesseeJustice Quarterly, 1997
- Comprehension of judges' instructions in the penalty phase of a capital trial: Focus on mitigating circumstances.Law and Human Behavior, 1992
- Jury decision making in the capital penalty phase: Legal assumptions, empirical findings, and a research agenda.Law and Human Behavior, 1992
- Psychopathy and violent recidivism.Law and Human Behavior, 1991