Examining the effect of religiosity, moral disengagement, personal attribution, comprehension and proximity on juror decision making regarding insanity pleas

Abstract

Legal attitudes, religion, and attributions relate to insanity defense attitudes and legal decisions in insanity cases. Religious fundamentalism has consistently predicted punitiveness associated with insanity; however, the current research focuses on moral disengagement as an explanatory link in the fundamentalist and insanity chain. Additional exploratory interests examined how defendants’ perceived proximity to jurors might act as a potential moderator. The current study uses factorial survey design to examine the relationships between the variables using a mock jury insanity trial. Results suggest religious fundamentalism is related to harsher verdicts and sentences, and these relationships are mediated by moral disengagement attributions, authoritarian attitudes towards the persons with mental illness, and negative attitudes towards the insanity defense. Based on findings, prosecution and defense should consider moral and religious themes presented in their arguments. Additionally, defendants pleading insanity should be aware of how juror attitudes and biases might affect the trial and verdict processes.

Key words:

• Comprehension
• insanity
• juror attitude
• juror decision making
• morality
• proximity
• verdict and sentencing

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to say a special thanks to American Psychology and Law Society (Div. 41) Minority Affairs Committee (co-chairs Christopher L. Bishop, Cynthia Willis-Esqueda) for providing the funding (Diversity Research Award) to complete this study.

Ethical standards

Declaration of conflicts of interest

Bridgett Tate has declared no conflicts of interest

Logan A. Yelderman has declared no conflicts of interest

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee [Prairie View A&M University IRB Committee IRB Protocol #2018-072] and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was not required as the research project was declared exempt