Criminal Minds Cannot Be Disabled...Legal Background • SCOTUS: Intellectually disabled defendants...
Transcript of Criminal Minds Cannot Be Disabled...Legal Background • SCOTUS: Intellectually disabled defendants...
Criminal Minds Cannot Be Disabled:
Intellectual Disability in Capital Cases
Emily ShawNicholas Scurich
David Faigman - UC Hastings
Legal Background• SCOTUS: Intellectually disabled defendants
cannot be executed • Atkins v. Virginia, 2002
• States should adhere to clinical (APA) standards in assessing intellectual disability
• Hall v. Florida, 2014• Clinical criteria:
• Deficits in intellectual functioning – IQ 70 (±5)• Deficits in adaptive functioning – Ex: self-care,
communication• Early signs of disability in childhood
UCIrvine
Legal Background
• States vary on whether intellectual disability is decided by a judge or a jury
• Approximately a third of all death penalty jurisdictions allow or require a jury
• (Blume et al., 2014)• In California:
• Defendants can choose either a judge or jury• Intellectual disability hearings typically occur
between conviction and sentencing
UCIrvine
Legal Background
UCIrvine
Conviction DisabilityHearing Sentencing
Research Questions
How does crime information impact
(1) perceptions of intellectual disability
AND
(2) willingness to sentence to death?
UCIrvine
Method• 301 venire jurors recruited, 286 valid
responses• 15 jurors excluded for failing attention check
• Demographics:• 52% female, median age 39• 39% White, 25% Hispanic, 22% Asian• 44% democrat, 25% republican, 20%
independent• 78% of jurors were death qualified
UCIrvine
Materials - Background• The defendant has been found guilty of
committing a capital offense• The defendant claims he is intellectually
disabled• If you find the defendant is intellectually
disabled, he cannot be executed• You will be asked to determine whether the
defendant should be considered disabled• If you determine the defendant is not disabled,
then you will determine whether he should receive a death sentence for his crime
UCIrvine
Design• 2 x 2 Factorial design
• Clinical manipulation (opinion: disabled vs not)• Crime information (present or absent)
UCIrvine
Materials - Clinical• Clinical assessment
• Two IQ tests (scores 69 and 74)• Deficits in work, academics and social skills• Signs of disability in childhood – IQ test of 67 and
behavioral problems in class
• Expert opinion manipulation• Expert says the defendant’s performance is either
consistent or inconsistent with intellectually disabled person
UCIrvine
Materials - Crime• Crime manipulation
• Some participants read crime content• Others receive only the clinical information
• Crime information• Defendant abducted a woman from a local parking
lot at gunpoint• Defendant drove victim to another location and
ordered her to give him her money and purse• Defendant shot the victim and left her body behind
a dumpster
UCIrvine
Dependent Variables• Intellectual disability verdict
• The defendant does/does not have an intellectual disability (select one)
• Willingness to sentence to death• If you were a juror in this case, would you
sentence the defendant to death? (yes / no)
UCIrvine
Results: Disability
UCIrvine
CrimeInformation:Exp(B)=2.49,95%CI[1.13,5.48],p =.023
0102030405060708090100
NoCrimeDetails CrimeDetails
%Sup
portfo
r"NotDisa
bled
"
Expert:"Disabled"
Expert:"NotDisabled"
ExpertOpinion:Exp(B)=4.37,95%CI[1.80,10.65],p =.001
0102030405060708090100
NoCrimeDetails CrimeDetails
%Sup
portfo
rDeathSen
tence
Expert:"Disabled"
Expert:"NotDisabled"
Results: Death Sentencing
UCIrvine
Expertopinion:Exp(B)=4.30,95%CI[1.41,13.11],p =.01CrimeInformation:Exp(B)=5.94,95%CI[2.16,16.38],p =.001
Summary
• Exposure to crime details made jurors:• Twice as likely to find a defendant
NOT disabled• Almost six times more likely to be
willing to sentence a defendant to death
UCIrvine
Summary• Limitations:
• Short written stimulus • No presentation with a live expert or defendant• No deliberation• Only used one court-appointed expert witness
• Future studies could explore how variations in crime details shape perceptions of disability (e.g. evidence of plan or cover-up)
• Recommendation: bifurcation of trial phases
UCIrvine