Public Estimations and Attitudes Towards the Insanity Plea in the United States: A Replication of Seminal Studies From the 1980's.

Abstract

A series of pioneering studies from the late 1970s and early 1980s evidenced that the general public held grossly inaccurate estimations of the frequency and success of the insanity plea, as well as significantly negative attitudes towards the plea. Since the 1980s replications of these findings are nonexistent and, perhaps consequently, contemporary scholars continue to rely on the findings of these studies when discussing the general population's understanding of the insanity defence. We replicated several major research findings from this body of literature by conducting a cross-sectional, online-administered, self-report study of 257 adults aged 18-65 within the general US population by administering the same questions as found in previous studies, and additional questions. Results support each of our hypotheses; compared to the two past representative studies, participants in this study believed that the insanity plea was used less frequently, was less successful when employed, was not as abused or overused, and was more acceptable as a defence. Throughout the paper we conjecture why attitudes and estimations may have shifted over the past 40 years. We also explicate how our results can be useful to lawyers or psychologists; primarily by elucidating attitudes and knowledge of the plea among prospective jurors.