Display options
Share it on

J Ment Health Res Intellect Disabil. 2015 Jul 01;8(3):140-167. doi: 10.1080/19315864.2015.1040176. Epub 2015 May 28.

Impact of Psychiatric Information on Potential Jurors in Evaluating High-Functioning Autism Spectrum Disorder (hfASD).

Journal of mental health research in intellectual disabilities

Colleen M Berryessa, Lauren C Milner, Nanibaa' A Garrison, Mildred K Cho

Affiliations

  1. Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics Stanford University, and Department of Criminology University of Pennsylvania.
  2. Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics Stanford University.
  3. Center for Biomedical Ethics and Society Vanderbilt University, and Department of Pediatrics Vanderbilt University Medical Center.
  4. Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics Stanford University, and Department of Pediatrics Stanford School of Medicine.

PMID: 26843900 PMCID: PMC4733480 DOI: 10.1080/19315864.2015.1040176

Abstract

During a trial involving an offender with a mental disorder, jurors are often required to evaluate information on the disorder and its characteristics. This evaluation relies on how jurors understand and synthesize psychiatric and other evidence on the disorder and this information's impact on the case, an offender's culpability, and the rendered verdict. The importance of this evaluation is further highlighted when jurors are faced with evaluating a disorder that may be associated with criminal actions of diagnosed offenders, such as high-functioning autism spectrum disorder (hfASD). We designed a three-part survey to assess potential jurors' attitudes concerning an offender's diagnosis with hfASD in terms of perceptions and decisions surrounding legal and moral responsibility, personal characteristics of the offender, the introduction of psychiatric and genetic information, and the condition's influence on the facts of the case. A sample of 623 jury-eligible U.S. adults completed the survey. We found the majority of participants were influenced by the information provided on hfASD. Most respondents indicated that hfASD diagnosis should generally not affect the legal responsibility of an offender, but many reported the disorder as a mitigating factor when evaluating moral responsibility and legal consequences for criminal actions. Respondents reported favorable and sympathetic perceptions of individuals with autism and associated characteristics but were unsure, even after the presentation of psychiatric information on hfASD, if these disorders should be classified as "mental illness." Further, the majority reported their views were in some way influenced by the fact that hfASD has potential genetic origins.

Keywords: decision making; high-functioning autism spectrum disorder (hfASD); jury; psychiatric evidence; responsibility

References

  1. Law Hum Behav. 2003 Apr;27(2):205-27 - PubMed
  2. Br J Psychiatry. 1994 Nov;165(5):679-82 - PubMed
  3. J Med Internet Res. 2001 Jul-Sep;3(3):E27 - PubMed
  4. Paediatr Respir Rev. 2011 Dec;12(4):277-80 - PubMed
  5. BMJ. 1994 Sep 24;309(6957):780 - PubMed
  6. Vanderbilt Law Rev. 1992 Mar;45(2):313-48 - PubMed
  7. Br J Psychiatry. 1990 Aug;157:284-7 - PubMed
  8. Qual Saf Health Care. 2003 Feb;12 (1):47-52 - PubMed
  9. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2014;42(1):91-100 - PubMed
  10. Br J Psychiatry. 1985 Nov;147:566-9 - PubMed
  11. J Gen Intern Med. 1999 Nov;14(11):688-94 - PubMed
  12. AIDS Care. 2005 Jan;17(1):85-101 - PubMed
  13. Mol Psychiatry. 2007 Jan;12(1):2-22 - PubMed
  14. Psychiatr Serv. 2006 Aug;57(8):1199-202 - PubMed
  15. J Autism Dev Disord. 2008 Apr;38(4):748-58 - PubMed
  16. Psychol Sci. 2006 Mar;17(3):249-55 - PubMed
  17. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 1988 May;29(3):351-60 - PubMed
  18. N Engl J Med. 1997 Jul 10;337(2):97-104 - PubMed
  19. Nat Rev Genet. 2008 May;9(5):341-55 - PubMed
  20. Psychol Methods. 2002 Mar;7(1):105-25 - PubMed
  21. Behav Sci Law. 2009 May-Jun;27(3):401-30 - PubMed
  22. Med Hypotheses. 2013 Sep;81(3):404-9 - PubMed
  23. J Med Libr Assoc. 2004 Oct;92(4):397-406 - PubMed
  24. J Autism Dev Disord. 2009 Nov;39(11):1560-7 - PubMed
  25. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2001;29(4):420-6 - PubMed
  26. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2006;34(3):374-84 - PubMed
  27. J Exp Psychol Appl. 2001 Jun;7(2):91-103 - PubMed
  28. Public Health Rep. 1987 May-Jun;102(3):248-54 - PubMed
  29. Fam Med. 2004 Mar;36(3):199-203 - PubMed
  30. BMJ. 1992 Mar 7;304(6827):615-8 - PubMed
  31. Trends Neurosci. 2006 Jul;29(7):349-58 - PubMed
  32. BMJ. 2004 Apr 24;328(7446):977-80 - PubMed
  33. Science. 2012 Aug 17;337(6096):846-9 - PubMed
  34. Sci Am. 1993 Jun;268(6):108-14 - PubMed
  35. Am J Ment Defic. 1981 Nov;86(3):235-42 - PubMed
  36. Behav Sci Law. 2007;25(4):449-70 - PubMed
  37. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2005;33(4):509-18 - PubMed
  38. Psychol Med. 1981 Feb;11(1):115-29 - PubMed
  39. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 2010 Apr;23(2):116-20 - PubMed
  40. Am J Ment Defic. 1979 Sep;84(2):124-31 - PubMed
  41. J Autism Dev Disord. 1991 Sep;21(3):349-54 - PubMed
  42. BMC Med Educ. 2005 Dec 19;5:40 - PubMed
  43. Pediatr Ann. 2009 Jan;38(1):30-5 - PubMed
  44. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol. 2008 Apr;52(2):196-205 - PubMed

Publication Types

Grant support