Psychological levels of responsibility (Heider)

1. Psychological levels of responsibility (Heider) • Global association • Causality • Foreseeability • Intention • Justification

2. Under what conditions do we reason at a particular level? • Intention seems to be most critical in allocating rewards • Foreseeability seems to be more important in allocating punishment • The greater the harm done, the greater the tendency to reason at lower levels • Greater blame placed by people who are high in belief in a just world

3. Legal levels of responsibility • Basic principles of legal responsibility: • Actus reus: “guilty act” • Mens rea: “guilty mind” • Concurrence of actus reus & mens rea

4. Do Heider’s other levels play any role in legal reasoning? • Global association: parental responsibility laws • Foreseeability: Negligence in civil law • Justification: • Self defense • Battered women’s syndrome as an extension of self defense • Insanity

5. Some history of the insanity defense • M’Naghten Rule: England, 1843 • Insanity is not knowing the difference between right and wrong (cognitive test) • Still used as the definition of insanity in half of all U.S. states • In some jurisdictions, rule broadened by including the irresistable impulse test • A “sane” person must know right from wrong, AND • Be able to resist the impulse to do a wrong deed (volitional aspect)

6. Some history of the insanity defense • The Durham Rule (1954) • Accused is not responsible if deed was the result of a mental disease or mental defect • Currently used only in New Hampshire • The A.L.I. Rule (Brawner Rule, 1972) • Developed by American Law Institute • Accused is not responsible if he/she lacks “substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law”

7. Alternatives to the insanity plea • Diminished Capacity defense • Used when defendant lacks ability to “meaningfully premeditate a crime” • Results in a lesser charge (e.g. Dan White case) • Guilty But Mentally Ill verdict • Two phase trial, first deciding guilt and second deciding state of mind • Second phase addresses whether defendant is best served by sentencing to a prison or a mental facility

8. Assessing criminal responsibility • Rogers Criminal Responsibility Assessment Scales • Mental Screening Evaluation • Role of expert witnesses • Prohibition of “ultimate issue” testimony

9. Legal competence • Psychological issue most frequently addressed in the court system = competence • Competence involves the defendant’s ability to • Understand the charges against him/her • Participate in proceedings in a meaningful way

10. Competence to plead guilty • Pleading guilty means waiving important rights • Competence involves understanding those sacrifices • Evaluation of competence focuses on • Nature of charges against defendant • Defendant’s reason for pleading guilty • Defendant’s understanding of charges & defenses • Defendant’s understanding of possible consequences

11. Competence to stand trial • About 25,000 defendants per year are evaluated for competence • Criterion = ability to consult with lawyer with reasonable degree of understanding • Evaluation can involve • Competency Screening Test (CST) • Competency Assessment Instrument (CAI) • Fitness Interview Test - Revised (FIT-R) • Georgia Court Competency Test (GCCT) • MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool

12. Children and competence • Children generally presumed incompetent until age 7 (sometimes even 10 or 14) • Factors bearing on a child’s competence: • Understanding difference between truth and falsehood • Capacity to understand and describe events • Memory ability • Suggestibility (biasing influences from parents, attorneys, etc.)

13. Other legal competencies • Competence to confess • Competence to waive the right to an attorney • Competence to refuse an insanity defense • Competence to be sentenced and punished (including competence to be executed)