@article{ref1,
title="Subjective factors in the judgment of insanity",
journal="Criminal justice and behavior",
year="1987",
author="Homant, Robert J. and Kennedy, Daniel B.",
volume="14",
number="1",
pages="38-61",
abstract="This research attempts to account for the variations in expert witnesses' judgments of insanity in a particular case. Three versions of a hypothetical insanity-defense case called Albert were randomly distributed to a sample of 1,002 psychiatrists and clinical psychologists, with usable returns being received from 262 subjects. A favorable opinion of Albert's insanity defense was found to correlate with being a psychiatrist, having a liberal ideology, being in favor of the insanity defense in general, and having received the &quot;neutral,&quot; as opposed to the &quot;sympathetic&quot; or &quot;unsympathetic,&quot; version of the case. A post hoc analysis also found that coming from a state that placed the burden of proof on the prosecution was associated with a favorable opinion of Albert's insanity defense. Taken together these variables accounted for 42% of the nonerror variance in opinions of Albert's insanity defense.<p /><p>Language: en</p>",
language="en",
issn="0093-8548",
doi="10.1177/0093854887014001005",
url="http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0093854887014001005"
}