PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
In insanity cases, although the defendant\'s eventual punishment is legally irrelevant to the jury\'s decision, it may be psychologically relevant. In this three-part mixed-methods study, Canadian jury eligible participants (N = 83) read a fictional murder case involving an insanity claim, then took part in 45-min deliberations. Findings showed that mock jurors who were generally favourable towards punishment had a lower frequency of utterances that supported the Defence\'s case. A qualitative description of keyword flagged utterances also demonstrated that mock jurors relied on moral intuitions about authority, harm, and fairness in justifying their positions. These findings may have application in crafting effective Judge\'s instructions and lawyer\'s opening statements.
摘要：
在精神错乱的情况下，虽然被告的最终惩罚在法律上与陪审团的决定无关，这可能与心理有关。在这个由三部分组成的混合方法研究中，加拿大陪审团合格的参与者（N=83）阅读了一个虚构的谋杀案，涉及精神错乱的主张，然后参加了45分钟的审议。调查结果表明，通常对惩罚有利的模拟陪审员的发言频率较低，这支持了辩方的案子。对关键词标记话语的定性描述还表明，模拟陪审员依赖于关于权威的道德直觉，伤害,以及为自己的立场辩护的公平。这些发现可能适用于制定有效的法官指示和律师的开庭陈述。
