Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Adjudication of Criminal Responsibility: A Review of Theory and Research

  • Chapter
Handbook of Psychology and Law

Abstract

The attribution of criminal responsibility has been a central problem of social policy and moral philosophy that antedates the formal mechanism of the “insanity defense.” After placing the attribution of criminal responsibility in historical perspective, this chapter develops the modern versions of the insanity defense and then identifies a set of principle psychological perspectives for study of the insanity defense.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Abelson, R.P. (1988). Conviction. American Psychologist, 43, 267–275.

    Google Scholar 

  • Addington v. State of Texas, 99 S. Ct. 1804 (1979).

    Google Scholar 

  • American Law Institute. (1962). Model penal code. Philadelphia: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnold’s Case 16 How. St. Tr. 695 (1724).

    Google Scholar 

  • Avison, W.R., & Speechley, K.N. (1987). The discharged psychiatric patient: A review of social, social-psychological, and psychiatric correlates of outcome. American Journal of Psychiatry, 144, 10–18.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ballantine, H.W. (1919). Criminal responsibility of the insane and feeble-minded. Journal of the American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology, 9, 485–499.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beasley, W.R. (1983). An overview of Michigan’s guilty but mentally ill verdict. Michigan Bar Journal, 62, 204–205, 215–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beckham, J.C., Annis, L.V., & Gustafson D.J. (1989). Decision making and examiner bias in forensic expert recommendations for not guility by reason of insanity. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 79–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bieber, S.L., Pasewark, R.A., Bosten, K., & Steadman H.J. (1988). Predicting criminal recidivism of insanity acquittées. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 11, 105–112.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, J.D., Faulkner, L., Shore, J.H., & Rogers J.L. (1983). The young adult chronic patients and the legal system: A systems analysis. In D.L. Cutler (Ed.), Effective aftercare for the 1980 y s: New directions for mental health services, (pp. 37–51) San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, J.D., Rogers, J.L., & Manson, S. (1982). After Oregon’s insanity defense: A comparison of conditional release and hospitalization. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 5, 391–402.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, J.D., Rogers, J.L., Manson, S.M., & Williams M.H. (1986). Lifetime police contacts of discharged Psychiatric Security Review Board clients. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 8, 189–202.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Boehnert, C.E. (1989). Characteristics of successful and unsuccessful insanity pleas. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 31–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bogenberger, R., Pasewark, R.A., Gudeman, H., & Beiber S.L. (1987). Follow-up of insanity acquittées in Hawaii. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 10, 283–295.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bonnie, R.J. (1983). The moral basis of the insanity defense. American Bar Association Journal, 69, 194–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braff, J., Arvanities, T., & Steadman, H. (1983). Detention patterns of successful and unsuccessful insanity defendants. Criminology, 21, 439–449.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callahan, L., Mayer, C., & Steadman, H. (1987). Insanity defense reform in the United States— Post-Hinckley. Mental and Physical Disability Law Reporter, 11, 54–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cavanaugh, J.L., & Wasyliw, O.E. (1985). Treating the not guilty by reason of insanity outpatient: A two year study. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 13, 407–415.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, D. (1988). Punishing the insane: Restriction of expert psychiatric testimony by Federal Rule of Evidence 704 (b). University of Florida Law Review, 40, 541–562.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, M.I., Spodak, M.K., Silver, S.B., & Williams K. (1988). Predicting outcome of insanity acquittées released to the community. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 6, 515–530.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 (1986).

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooke, G., & Sikorski, C.R. (1974). Factors affecting length of hospitalization in persons adjudicated not guilty by reason of insanity. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 2, 251–261.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Criss, M.L., & Racine, D.R. (1980). Impact and change in legal standard for those adjudicated not guilty by reason of insanity 1975–1979. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 8, 261–271.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crotty, H.D. (1924). The history of insanity as a defence to crime in English criminal law. California Law Review, 12, 105–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Durham v. United States, 214 F.2d 862 (D.C. Cir. 1954).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellsworth, P.C., Bukaty, R.M., Cowan, C.L., & Thompson, W.C. (1984). The death-qualified jury and the defense of insanity. Law and Human Behavior, 8, 81–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faust, D., & Ziskin, J. (1988). The expert witness in psychology and psychiatry. Science, 241, 31–35.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Federal Rules of Evidence 704(b).

    Google Scholar 

  • Finkel, N.J. (1989). The Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984: Much ado about nothing. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 7, 403–419.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finkel, N.J., & Handel, S.F. (1989). How jurors construe “insanity.” Law and Human Behavior, 13, 41–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fukunaga, K., Pasewark, R., Hawkins, M., & Gudeman, H. (1981). Insanity plea: Interexaminer agreement and concordance of psychiatric opinion and court verdict. Law and Human Behavior, 5, 325–328.

    Google Scholar 

  • Golding, S.L. (1990). Mental health professionals and the courts: The ethics of expertise. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 13, 281–307.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Golding, S.L., Eaves, D., & Kowaz A. (1989). The assessment, treatment and community outcome of insanity acquittées: Forensic history and response to treatment. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 12, 149–179.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Golding, S.L., & Roesch, R. (1987). The assessment of criminal responsibility: A historical approach to a current controversy. In I.B. Weiner & A.K. Hess (Eds.), Handbook of forensic psychology (pp. 395–436). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Golding, S.L., Valone, K.E., & Foster, S.W. (1982). Interpersonal construal: An individual differences framework. In N. Hirschberg & L. Humphreys (Eds.), Multivariate applications in the social sciences (pp. 163–193). New York: Wilegd Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, S. (1972). The insanity defense: Historical development and contemporary relevance. American Criminal Law Review, 10, 559–583.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guy, W.A. (1869). On insanity and crime—and on the plea of insanity in criminal cases. Royal Statistical Society (London Journal Series A), (pp. 159–191).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hans, V.P. (1986). An analysis of public attitudes toward the insanity defense. Criminology, 24, 393–414.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hans, V.P., & Slater, D. (1983). John Hinckley, Jr. and the insanity defense: The public’s verdict. Public Opinion Quarterly, 47, 202–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartstone, E., Steadman, H.J., & Monahan, J. (1982). Vitek and beyond: The empirical context of prison-to-hospital transfers. Law and Contemporary Problems, 45, 125–136.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Heilbrun, K., Heilbrun, P.G., & Griffin, N. (1988). Comparing females acquitted by reason of insanity, convicted, and civilly committed in Florida: 1977–1984. Law and Human Behavior, 12, 295–311.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hermann, D.H.J. (1983). The insanity defense: Philosophical, historical, and legal perspectives. Springfield, Ill.: C. C. Thomas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hermann, K.H.J., & Sor, Y.S. (1983). Convicting or confining? Alternative directions in insanity law reform: Guilty but mentally ill versus new rules for release of insanity acquittées. Brigham Young University Law Review, 1983, 499–638.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hiday, V.A. (1988). Civil commitment: A review of empirical research. Behavioral Sciences & The Law, 6, 15–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Homant, R.J., & Kennedy, D.B. (1986). Judgment of legal insanity as a function of attitude toward the insanity defense. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 9, 67–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Homant, R.J., & Kennedy, D.B. (1987). Subjective factors in clinicians’ judgments of insanity: Comparison of a hypothetical case and an actual case. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 18, 439–446.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard, R.C., & Clark, C.R. (1985). When courts and experts disagree: Discordance between insanity recommendations and adjudications. Law and Human Behavior, 9, 385–395.

    Google Scholar 

  • Illinois revised statutes. (1983). Chapter 38, Sections 6–2, 115–1 to 115–4, 115–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984. (1984). Public Law 98–473, sections 401–406.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janofsky, J.S., Vandewalle, M.B., & Rappeport, J.R. (1989) Defendants pleading insanity: An analysis of outcome. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry & Law, 17, 203–211.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeffrey, R.W., Pasewark, R.A., & Bieber S. (1988). Insanity plea: Predicting not guilty by reason of insanity adjudications. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 16, 35–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones v. United States, 103 S. Ct. 3043 (1983).

    Google Scholar 

  • Keedy, E.R. (1917). Insanity and criminal responsibility. Harvard Law Review, 30, 535–560, 724–738.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keilitz, I. (1987). Reforming and researching the insanity defense. Rutgers Law Review, 39, 289–322.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klofas, J., & Weisheit, R. (1986). Pleading guilty but mentally ill: Adversarial justice and mental health. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 9, 491–501.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lamb, H.R., Weinberger, L.E., & Gross B.H. (1988). Court-mandated community outpatient treatment for persons found not guilty by reason of insanity: A five-year follow-up. American Journal of Psychiatry, 145, 450–456.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McGraw, B.D., Farthing-Capowich, D., & Keilitz I. (1985). The “guilty but mentally ill” plea and verdict: Current state of the knowledge. Villanova Law Review, 30, 117–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKay, R.D., & Kopelman, J. (1988). The operation of the “guilty but mentally ill” verdict in Pennsylvania. Journal of Psychiatry and Law, 16(2), 247–268.

    Google Scholar 

  • Melton, G.B., Petrila, J., Poythress, N.G., & Slobogin C. (1987). Psychological evaluations for the courts: A handbook for mental health professionals and lawyers New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Menzies, R.J. (1987). Cycles of control: The trans-carceral careers of forensic patients. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 10, 233–249.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Menzies, R.J., & Webster, C.D. (1987). Where they go and what they do: The longitudinal careers of forensic patients in the medicolegal complex. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 29, 275–293.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michigan compiled laws annotated. Section 330.1400a, (1982).

    Google Scholar 

  • Mickenberg, I. (1987). A pleasant surprise: The guilty but mentally ill verdict has both succeeded in its own right and successfully preserved the traditional role of the insanity defense. University of Cincinnati Law Review, 55, 943–996.

    Google Scholar 

  • M’Naghten’s Case, 8 Eng. Rep. 718 (1843).

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, D.W., McCullough, T.M., Jenkins, P.L., & White, W.M. (1988). Guilty but mentally ill: The South Carolina experience. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 16, 41–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morrissey, J.P., & Goldman, H.H. (1986). Care and treatment of the mentally ill in the United States: Historical developments and reforms. In S.A. Shah (Ed.), The law and mental health. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 484, 12–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morrow, W.R., & Peterson, D.B. (1966). Follow-up of discharged psychiatric offenders—“Not guilty by reason of insanity” and “criminal sexual psychopaths.” Journal of Criminal Law Criminology and Police Science, 57, 31–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morse, S.J. (1982). Failed explanations and criminal responsibility: Experts and the unconscious. Virginia Law Review, 68, 971–1084.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morse, S.J. (1985). Excusing the crazy: The insanity defense reconsidered. Southern California Law Review, 58, 777–836.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morse, S.J. (1986). Psychology, determinism and legal responsibility. In G.B. Melton (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation: Vol. 33. The law as a behavioral instrument (pp. 35–85). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morse, S.J. (1988). Treating crazy people less specially. West Virginia Law Review, 90, 353–385.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mulvey, E.P., Blumstein, A., & Cohen J. (1986). Reframing the research question of mental patient criminality. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 9, 57–65.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Packer, I.K. (1987). Homicide and the insanity defense: A comparison of sane and insane murders. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 5, 25–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pantle, M., Pasewark, R., & Steadman, H. (1980). Comparing institutionalization periods and subsequent arrests of insanity acquittées and convicted felons. Journal of Psychiatry and Law, 8, 305–316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parry, J. (1987). The civil-criminal dichotomy in insanity commitment and release proceedings: Hinckley and other matters. Mental and Physical Disability Law Reporter, 11, 218–223.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pasewark, R. A. (1986). A review of research on the insanity defense. In S.A. Shah (Ed.), The law and mental health. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 484, 100–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pasewark, R.A., & McGinley, H. (1985). Insanity plea: National survey of frequency and success. Journal of Psychiatry and Law, 13(1–2), 101–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pasewark, R.A., Pantle, M.L., & Steadman H. (1979). The insanity plea in New York State, 1965–1976. New York State Bar Journal, April, 186–225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pasewark, R.A., Pantle, M.L., & Steadman H. (1979). Characteristics and disposition of persons found not guilty by reason of insanity in New York State, 1971–1976. American Journal of Psychiatry, 136, 655–660.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pasewark, R.A., Pantle, M.L., & Steadman H.J. (1982). Detention and rearrest rates of persons found not guilty by reason of insanity and convicted felons. American Journal of Psychiatry, 139, 892–897.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1986). Evidence evaluation in complex decision-making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 242–258.

    Google Scholar 

  • People v. Marshall, 448 N.E.2d 969, 111. App. 3d (1983).

    Google Scholar 

  • People v. McQuillan, 221 N.W.2d 569, Supreme Court of Michigan (1974).

    Google Scholar 

  • Petrila, J. (1982). The insanity defense and other mental health dispositions in Missouri. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 5, 81–101.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, B.L., & Pasewark, R.A. (1980). Insanity plea in Connecticut. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 8, 335–344.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Piatt, A.M., & Diamond, B.L. (1965). The origins and development of the “wild beast” concept of mental illness and its relation to theories of criminal responsibility. Journal of Historical and Behavioral Science, 1, 355–367.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piatt, A.M., & Diamond, B.L. (1966). The origins of the “right and wrong” test of criminal responsibility and its subsequent development in the United States: An historical survey. California Law Review, 54, 1227–1259.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pogrebin, M., Regoli, R., & Perry, K. (1986). Not guilty by reason of insanity: A research note. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 8, 237–241.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pollock, F., & Maitland, F. (1952). History of English Law (Vol. 1, 2nd ed.). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Resnick, P.J. (1986). Perceptions of psychiatric testimony: A historical perspective on the hysterical invective. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 14, 203–219.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, C., & Golding, S.L. (1991, in press). The social construction of criminal responsibility and insanity, Law and Human Behavior.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, C., Golding, S.L., & Fincham, F. (1987). Implicit theories of criminal responsibility: Decision making and the insanith defense. Law and Human Behavior, 11, 207–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roesch, R., & Golding, S.L. (1987). Defining and assessing competency to stand trial. In LB. Weiner & A.K. Hess (Eds.), Handbook of forensic psychology (pp. 378–394). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, J.L., Bloom, J.D., & Manson, S.M. (1984). Insanity defenses: Contested or conceded? American Journal of Psychiatry, 141, 885–888.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, R. (1987). Assessment of criminal responsibility: Empirical advances and unanswered questions. Journal of Psychiatry and Law, 15, 73–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, R. (1988). APA’s position on the insanity defense: Empiricism versus emotionalism. American Psychologist, 42, 840–848.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, R., & Cavanaugh, J.L. (1981). Rogers Criminal Responsibility Assessment Scales. Illinois Medical Journal, 160, 164–169.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, R., Cavanaugh, J.L., Seman, W., & Harris, M. (1984). Legal outcome and clinical findings: A study of insanity evaluations. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 12, 75–83.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, R. & Ewing, C.P. (1989). The ultimate opinion proscription: A cosmetic fix and a plea for empiricism. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 357–374.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, R., Seeman, W., & Clark C.R. (1986). Assessment of criminal responsibility: Initial validation of the R-CRAS with the M’Naghten and GBMI standards. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 9, 67–75.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, R., Wasyliw, O.E., & Cavanaugh, J.L. (1984). Evaluating insanity: A study of construct validity. Law and Human Behavior, 8, 293–304.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, R., & Zimbarg, R. (1987). Antisocial backgrounds of defendants evaluated for insanity: A research note. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 10, 75–80.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Savitsky, J.C., & Lindblom, W.D. (1986). The impact of the guilty but mentally ill verdict on juror decisions: An empirical analysis. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16, 686–701.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sayre, F.B. (1932). Mens rea. Harvard Law Review, 45, 974–1026.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shah, S.A. (1986). Criminal responsibility. In A.L. McGarry, S.A. Shah, & W.J. Curran (Eds.), Forensic psychiatry and psychology: Perspectives and standards for interdisciplinary practice (pp. 167–208). Philadelphia: F. A. Davis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slobogin, C., Melton, G.B., & Showalter, C.R. (1984). The feasibility of a brief evaluation of mental state at the time of offense. Law and Human Behavior, 8, 305–321.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, G.A., & Hall, J.A. (1982). Evaluating Michigan’s guilty but mentally ill verdict: An empirical study. Michigan Journal of Law Reform, 76, 75–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, R. (1981). Trial by medicine: Insanity and responsibility in Victorian trials. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spodak, M.K., Silver, S.B., & Wright C.U. (1984). Criminality of discharged insanity acquittées: Fifteen year experience in Maryland reviewed. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 12, 373–382.

    Google Scholar 

  • State v. Pike, 49 N. H. 399, Sup. Ct. N.H. (1869).

    Google Scholar 

  • State v. Strasburg, 110 p. 1020, Sup. Ct. Wash. (1910).

    Google Scholar 

  • Steadman, H.J. (1987). Mental health law and the criminal offender: Research directions for the. 1990’s. Rutgers Law Review, 39, 323–337.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steadman, H.J., & Braff, J.J. (1983). Defendants found not guilty by reason of insanity. In J. Monahan & H. Steadman (Eds.), Mentally disordered offenders: Perspectives from law and social science, (pp. 109–129). New York: Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steadman, H.J., Callahan, L.A., Robbins, P.C., & Morrissey J.P. (1989). Maintenance of an insanity defense under Montana’s “abolition” of the insanity defense. American Journal of Psychiatry, 146, 357–360.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Steadman, H.J., Keitner, L., Braff, J., & Arvanities, M.A. (1983). Factors associated with a successful insanity plea. American Journal of Psychiatry, 140, 401–405.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Steadman, H.J., & Morrissey, J.P. (1986). The insanity defense: Problems and prospects for studying the impact of legal reforms. In S.A. Shah (Ed.), The law and mental health. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 484, 115–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stock, H.V., & Poythress, N.G. (1979, August). Psychologists 1 opinions on competency and sanity: How reliable? Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stroud, D.A. (1914). Mens rea or imputability under the laws of England. London: Sweet & Maxwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trial of Lunatics Act, 46 & 47 Vict., c. 38 (1883).United States v. Brawner, 471 F.2d 969 (D.C. Cir. (1972).

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v. Lyons, 731 F.2d 243, Fifth Cir. (1984a).

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v. Lyons, 739 F.2d 994, Fifth Cir. (1984b).

    Google Scholar 

  • Utah v. Shickles, 760 F.2d 291, Utah Sup. Ct. (1988).

    Google Scholar 

  • Visher, C. (1987). Juror decision making: The importance of evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 3, 95–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, N. (1968). Crime and insanity in England: Vol. 1. The historical perspective. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wyer, R.S., & Srull, T.K. (1986). Human cognition in its social context. Psychological Review, 93, 322–359.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Stephen L. Golding
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. 19130, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Dorothy K. Kagehiro

  2. Department of Legal Studies, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, 19104-6369, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    William S. Laufer

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1992 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Golding, S.L. (1992). The Adjudication of Criminal Responsibility: A Review of Theory and Research. In: Kagehiro, D.K., Laufer, W.S. (eds) Handbook of Psychology and Law. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-4038-7_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-4038-7_12

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4757-4040-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4757-4038-7

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation