Decision making and examiner bias in forensic expert recommendations for not guilty by reason of insanity

Published

Journal Article

Source of nomination (prosecution, defense, judge) was varied in a fictional not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) case distributed to 180 community forensic evaluators in a state employing the M'Naghten rule. Differences among examiners by appointment for the final NGRI judgment was not significant; interrater reliability for psychopathological symptomatology was .73. Discriminant analysis revealed significant differences in the decision-making process between evaluators recommending sanity and those endorsing insanity, as well as between psychiatrists and psychologists. © 1989 Plenum Publishing Corporation.

Full Text

Duke Authors

Cited Authors

  • Beckham, JC; Annis, LV; Gustafson, DJ

Published Date

  • March 1, 1989

Published In

Volume / Issue

  • 13 / 1

Start / End Page

  • 79 - 87

Electronic International Standard Serial Number (EISSN)

  • 1573-661X

International Standard Serial Number (ISSN)

  • 0147-7307

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

  • 10.1007/BF01056164

Citation Source

  • Scopus