Medication state at the time of the offense: medication noncompliance and criminal responsibility

Show simple item record

dc.contributor Shealy, R. Clayton
dc.contributor Sellbom, Martin
dc.contributor Dautovich, Natalie D.
dc.contributor Pollio, David E.
dc.contributor Colquitt, Joseph A.
dc.contributor.advisor Brodsky, Stanley L.
dc.contributor.author Titcomb, Caroline Richards
dc.date.accessioned 2017-03-01T17:08:59Z
dc.date.available 2017-03-01T17:08:59Z
dc.date.issued 2014
dc.identifier.other u0015_0000001_0001606
dc.identifier.other Titcomb_alatus_0004D_11571
dc.identifier.uri https://ir.ua.edu/handle/123456789/2060
dc.description Electronic Thesis or Dissertation
dc.description.abstract Ethical and due process concerns arise when insanity standards lack a nuanced picture of how society views mental illness and its effects on the volitional nature of a defendant's actions. This project examined whether mock jurors consider meta-responsibility (MR) of mentally ill defendants, how they think about MR in relation to criminal responsibility, and if various degrees of MR differentially influence defendant responsibility and guilt. The MR benchmark manipulation was medication compliance (or noncompliance; MNC) for a NGRI defendant at three levels: medication compliant (MC/control), purposive MNC, and inadvertent MNC. The type of MNC was manipulated by establishing the defendant's insight into his illness as either High or Low. A second variable - the extent to which a forensic mental health expert explains issues relevant to the defendant's MR (i.e., MNC and insight into one's mental illness) - was also manipulated. Using a between-subjects jury deliberation paradigm and a mixed quantitative-qualitative methodology, results did not yield the hypothesized interactions between a NGRI defendant's MNC, insight, and testimony elaboration on MR and verdict. Results suggest that as ecological validity of the study parameters increased, effects found in prior research with more experimental control were unsupported. Findings were consistent with research suggesting jurors are unlikely to recognize the complexity of the relationship between a defendant's MNC and volitional, informed decision-making; thus, readily attributing MR to NGRI defendants at the cost of overlooking individual differences in case facts related to some of the key determinants of their verdicts such as MNC and insight into one's illness. Implications for future research, NGRI proceedings, and forensic mental health expert testimony are discussed.
dc.format.extent 342 p.
dc.format.medium electronic
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf
dc.language English
dc.language.iso en_US
dc.publisher University of Alabama Libraries
dc.relation.ispartof The University of Alabama Electronic Theses and Dissertations
dc.relation.ispartof The University of Alabama Libraries Digital Collections
dc.relation.hasversion born digital
dc.rights All rights reserved by the author unless otherwise indicated.
dc.subject.other Psychology
dc.subject.other Law
dc.subject.other Social psychology
dc.title Medication state at the time of the offense: medication noncompliance and criminal responsibility
dc.type thesis
dc.type text
etdms.degree.department University of Alabama. Dept. of Psychology
etdms.degree.discipline Psychology
etdms.degree.grantor The University of Alabama
etdms.degree.level doctoral
etdms.degree.name Ph.D.


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search DSpace


Browse

My Account