Group dynamics in forensic pretrial decision-making

Steven E. Pitt, Joanna D. Brandt, Christiane Tellefsen, Jeffrey Stuart Janofsky, Marcia E. Cohen, Eric D. Bettis, Jonas R. Rappeport

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

This study examines how forensic evaluators' opinions that pertain to diagnosis, competency to stand trial, and criminal responsibility (Maryland's version of the not guilty by reason of insanity plea) are rendered at a state forensic hospital for defendants pleading not criminally responsible. Pretrial evaluations completed independently by a psychiatrist, a psychologist, and a social worker were presented at a forensic staff conference where psychiatrists and psychologists openly 'voted' on diagnosis, competency to stand trial, and criminal responsibility. These results were then sent to the court. The purpose of this study was to assess the clinicians' level of agreement and the role that conformity played in the decision-making process. A sample of twenty court-ordered pretrial evaluations of defendants examined at the hospital between March and June 1991, with evaluators' opinions generated by a secret ballot, were compared with a matched control group from an earlier time, when opinions were generated by open ballot. The study was designed to compare the opinions of forensic evaluators in issues of diagnosis, competency to stand trial, and criminal responsibility between the two samples. The defendants in the experimental group and the control group were matched on the basis of age, race, sex, and offense. It was hypothesized that with secret ballot voting there would be greater disparity of agreement regarding diagnosis, competency to stand trial, and criminal responsibility opinions compared with the open method of voting. However, the results of this study did not support that hypothesis. There was little disparity on forensic opinions rated either by secret or open voting.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)95-104
Number of pages10
JournalJournal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
Volume25
Issue number1
StatePublished - 1997

Fingerprint

group dynamics
Decision Making
Politics
decision making
Psychiatry
voting
responsibility
psychiatrist
Psychology
psychologist
Control Groups
State Hospitals
Sex Offenses
Research Design
Group
conformity
evaluation
decision-making process
social worker
offense

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Law
  • Psychiatry and Mental health

Cite this

Pitt, S. E., Brandt, J. D., Tellefsen, C., Janofsky, J. S., Cohen, M. E., Bettis, E. D., & Rappeport, J. R. (1997). Group dynamics in forensic pretrial decision-making. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 25(1), 95-104.

Group dynamics in forensic pretrial decision-making. / Pitt, Steven E.; Brandt, Joanna D.; Tellefsen, Christiane; Janofsky, Jeffrey Stuart; Cohen, Marcia E.; Bettis, Eric D.; Rappeport, Jonas R.

In: Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Vol. 25, No. 1, 1997, p. 95-104.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Pitt, SE, Brandt, JD, Tellefsen, C, Janofsky, JS, Cohen, ME, Bettis, ED & Rappeport, JR 1997, 'Group dynamics in forensic pretrial decision-making', Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 95-104.
Pitt, Steven E. ; Brandt, Joanna D. ; Tellefsen, Christiane ; Janofsky, Jeffrey Stuart ; Cohen, Marcia E. ; Bettis, Eric D. ; Rappeport, Jonas R. / Group dynamics in forensic pretrial decision-making. In: Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law. 1997 ; Vol. 25, No. 1. pp. 95-104.
@article{98d3503b60d143b89d8c8fb31b131907,
title = "Group dynamics in forensic pretrial decision-making",
abstract = "This study examines how forensic evaluators' opinions that pertain to diagnosis, competency to stand trial, and criminal responsibility (Maryland's version of the not guilty by reason of insanity plea) are rendered at a state forensic hospital for defendants pleading not criminally responsible. Pretrial evaluations completed independently by a psychiatrist, a psychologist, and a social worker were presented at a forensic staff conference where psychiatrists and psychologists openly 'voted' on diagnosis, competency to stand trial, and criminal responsibility. These results were then sent to the court. The purpose of this study was to assess the clinicians' level of agreement and the role that conformity played in the decision-making process. A sample of twenty court-ordered pretrial evaluations of defendants examined at the hospital between March and June 1991, with evaluators' opinions generated by a secret ballot, were compared with a matched control group from an earlier time, when opinions were generated by open ballot. The study was designed to compare the opinions of forensic evaluators in issues of diagnosis, competency to stand trial, and criminal responsibility between the two samples. The defendants in the experimental group and the control group were matched on the basis of age, race, sex, and offense. It was hypothesized that with secret ballot voting there would be greater disparity of agreement regarding diagnosis, competency to stand trial, and criminal responsibility opinions compared with the open method of voting. However, the results of this study did not support that hypothesis. There was little disparity on forensic opinions rated either by secret or open voting.",
author = "Pitt, {Steven E.} and Brandt, {Joanna D.} and Christiane Tellefsen and Janofsky, {Jeffrey Stuart} and Cohen, {Marcia E.} and Bettis, {Eric D.} and Rappeport, {Jonas R.}",
year = "1997",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "25",
pages = "95--104",
journal = "Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law",
issn = "1093-6793",
publisher = "American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Group dynamics in forensic pretrial decision-making

AU - Pitt, Steven E.

AU - Brandt, Joanna D.

AU - Tellefsen, Christiane

AU - Janofsky, Jeffrey Stuart

AU - Cohen, Marcia E.

AU - Bettis, Eric D.

AU - Rappeport, Jonas R.

PY - 1997

Y1 - 1997

N2 - This study examines how forensic evaluators' opinions that pertain to diagnosis, competency to stand trial, and criminal responsibility (Maryland's version of the not guilty by reason of insanity plea) are rendered at a state forensic hospital for defendants pleading not criminally responsible. Pretrial evaluations completed independently by a psychiatrist, a psychologist, and a social worker were presented at a forensic staff conference where psychiatrists and psychologists openly 'voted' on diagnosis, competency to stand trial, and criminal responsibility. These results were then sent to the court. The purpose of this study was to assess the clinicians' level of agreement and the role that conformity played in the decision-making process. A sample of twenty court-ordered pretrial evaluations of defendants examined at the hospital between March and June 1991, with evaluators' opinions generated by a secret ballot, were compared with a matched control group from an earlier time, when opinions were generated by open ballot. The study was designed to compare the opinions of forensic evaluators in issues of diagnosis, competency to stand trial, and criminal responsibility between the two samples. The defendants in the experimental group and the control group were matched on the basis of age, race, sex, and offense. It was hypothesized that with secret ballot voting there would be greater disparity of agreement regarding diagnosis, competency to stand trial, and criminal responsibility opinions compared with the open method of voting. However, the results of this study did not support that hypothesis. There was little disparity on forensic opinions rated either by secret or open voting.

AB - This study examines how forensic evaluators' opinions that pertain to diagnosis, competency to stand trial, and criminal responsibility (Maryland's version of the not guilty by reason of insanity plea) are rendered at a state forensic hospital for defendants pleading not criminally responsible. Pretrial evaluations completed independently by a psychiatrist, a psychologist, and a social worker were presented at a forensic staff conference where psychiatrists and psychologists openly 'voted' on diagnosis, competency to stand trial, and criminal responsibility. These results were then sent to the court. The purpose of this study was to assess the clinicians' level of agreement and the role that conformity played in the decision-making process. A sample of twenty court-ordered pretrial evaluations of defendants examined at the hospital between March and June 1991, with evaluators' opinions generated by a secret ballot, were compared with a matched control group from an earlier time, when opinions were generated by open ballot. The study was designed to compare the opinions of forensic evaluators in issues of diagnosis, competency to stand trial, and criminal responsibility between the two samples. The defendants in the experimental group and the control group were matched on the basis of age, race, sex, and offense. It was hypothesized that with secret ballot voting there would be greater disparity of agreement regarding diagnosis, competency to stand trial, and criminal responsibility opinions compared with the open method of voting. However, the results of this study did not support that hypothesis. There was little disparity on forensic opinions rated either by secret or open voting.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0031418161&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0031418161&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 9148886

AN - SCOPUS:0031418161

VL - 25

SP - 95

EP - 104

JO - Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law

JF - Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law

SN - 1093-6793

IS - 1

ER -