Syndromes and Other Cultural Defenses Part II April 12, 2006 Law & Social Science.

Syndromes and Syndromes and Other Cultural Defenses Other Cultural Defenses

Part IIPart II

April 12, 2006April 12, 2006Law & Social ScienceLaw & Social Science

Jahnke v. Wyoming (1984)Jahnke v. Wyoming (1984)

Facts:Facts:

16 year old Richard John Jahnke shot his 16 year old Richard John Jahnke shot his father 4 times, killing him almost instantlyfather 4 times, killing him almost instantly

Following an altercation with his father, Following an altercation with his father, Jahnke set up an ambush and awaited his Jahnke set up an ambush and awaited his father’s return with two shotguns, three father’s return with two shotguns, three rifles, a .38 caliber pistol and a Marine rifles, a .38 caliber pistol and a Marine knife.knife.

JahnkeJahnke

Trial court:Trial court:

Judge excluded psychiatric testimony on Judge excluded psychiatric testimony on “battered youth syndrome”“battered youth syndrome”

Jahnke pleaded self-defenseJahnke pleaded self-defense

Jury convicted on lesser included charge Jury convicted on lesser included charge of voluntary manslaughterof voluntary manslaughter

JahnkeJahnke

Comparing battered child syndrome (BCS) to BWS:Comparing battered child syndrome (BCS) to BWS:““While those cases deal with wives as victims of abuse, While those cases deal with wives as victims of abuse, conceptually there is no reason to distinguish a child who conceptually there is no reason to distinguish a child who is a victim of abuse. A perusal of those cases leads to a is a victim of abuse. A perusal of those cases leads to a conclusion that the effort which is made on behalf of the conclusion that the effort which is made on behalf of the defendants is to secure the recognition of a special defendants is to secure the recognition of a special defense in a homicide case for victims of family abuse. defense in a homicide case for victims of family abuse. Succinctly stated, the attempt that is made is to establish Succinctly stated, the attempt that is made is to establish the concept that one who is a victim of family abuse is the concept that one who is a victim of family abuse is justified in killing the abuser.”justified in killing the abuser.”Which will “amount to a lead into the abyss of ANARCHY”Which will “amount to a lead into the abyss of ANARCHY”

JahnkeJahnke

Court found no error:Court found no error:At hearing to transfer case to juvenile court, At hearing to transfer case to juvenile court, psychologist testified that Jahnke suffered from psychologist testified that Jahnke suffered from a mental disordera mental disorder– ButBut admitted that BCS was not actually defined or admitted that BCS was not actually defined or

recognized as a mental or personality disorderrecognized as a mental or personality disorder

Plus no subsequent effort to provide evidence Plus no subsequent effort to provide evidence about the state of scientific knowledge on the about the state of scientific knowledge on the effect of the BCSeffect of the BCS

Insufficient to satisfy criteria for admission of Insufficient to satisfy criteria for admission of expert testimonyexpert testimony

JahnkeJahnke

Concurrence:Concurrence:

““I totally agree with the majority's excellent I totally agree with the majority's excellent opinion.”opinion.”

JahnkeJahnke

Dissent:Dissent:““[O]ur courts admit expert testimony … upon the [O]ur courts admit expert testimony … upon the issue of sanity when that is the ultimate fact--and issue of sanity when that is the ultimate fact--and the plea is insanity--… [but] it is not acceptable the plea is insanity--… [but] it is not acceptable that a psychiatrist testify about whether behavior that a psychiatrist testify about whether behavior … [is] sanely typical of the behavior of a … [is] sanely typical of the behavior of a reasonable person”reasonable person”Although the evidence did not meet the ‘state of Although the evidence did not meet the ‘state of the art’ standard, it should have been admitted the art’ standard, it should have been admitted because it was central to Jahnke’s defensebecause it was central to Jahnke’s defense

JahnkeJahnke

Dissent re: voir dire -Dissent re: voir dire -““Appellant was equally entitled to know how Appellant was equally entitled to know how jurors felt about physical and mental abuse and jurors felt about physical and mental abuse and the effect that might have on a child from the the effect that might have on a child from the age of five until he reached sixteen years of age. age of five until he reached sixteen years of age. Appellant claimed he acted in self-defense. His Appellant claimed he acted in self-defense. His state of mind and his apprehension of fear under state of mind and his apprehension of fear under all of the circumstances was an important all of the circumstances was an important element of his defense; and how jurors might element of his defense; and how jurors might feel about that defense … was vital in jury feel about that defense … was vital in jury selection.”selection.”

JahnkeJahnke

Could psych testimony have been admitted?Could psych testimony have been admitted?

Argued for the scientific community’s Argued for the scientific community’s acceptance at trial court:acceptance at trial court:– E.g. 1962: Kempe’s “The Battered Child E.g. 1962: Kempe’s “The Battered Child

Syndrome” in JAMASyndrome” in JAMA

BCS is diagnostic, unlike BWSBCS is diagnostic, unlike BWS– Medical records?Medical records?

ZamoraZamora

Facts:Facts:

15 year old Ronny Zamora shot and killed 15 year old Ronny Zamora shot and killed 82 year old neighbor while robbing her 82 year old neighbor while robbing her homehome

Plead not guilty by reason of insanityPlead not guilty by reason of insanity

Found guilty on four counts, including first Found guilty on four counts, including first degree murderdegree murder

Zamora CasesZamora Cases

Florida v. Zamora (1977)Florida v. Zamora (1977)– Trial transcript to introduce expert witnessTrial transcript to introduce expert witness

Zamora v. State (1978)Zamora v. State (1978)– Appeal exclusion of expert testimonyAppeal exclusion of expert testimony

Zamora v. Columbia Broadcasting System Zamora v. Columbia Broadcasting System (1979)(1979)– Suit against TV station - dismissedSuit against TV station - dismissed

Zamora v. Dugger (1987)Zamora v. Dugger (1987)– Appeal on inadequate counsel groundsAppeal on inadequate counsel grounds

Zamora CasesZamora Cases

Florida’s test for insanity Florida’s test for insanity – M'Naghten Rule or "right and wrong" testM'Naghten Rule or "right and wrong" test– A person is legally insane when he is precluded by A person is legally insane when he is precluded by

mental disease from distinguishing between right and mental disease from distinguishing between right and wrong at the time of the actwrong at the time of the act

– Irresistible impulse is not recognized as a defense. Irresistible impulse is not recognized as a defense. – Diminished capacity is not recognized as a defense, Diminished capacity is not recognized as a defense,

unless a defendant's capacity is so diminished that he unless a defendant's capacity is so diminished that he cannot distinguish right from wrong pursuant to the cannot distinguish right from wrong pursuant to the M'Naghten Rule. M'Naghten Rule.

Florida v. Zamora (1977)Florida v. Zamora (1977)

Trial transcript to introduce expert witness, Trial transcript to introduce expert witness, Dr. Margaret Thomas.Dr. Margaret Thomas.– Defense likened TV intoxication studies to Defense likened TV intoxication studies to

those done on alcohol intoxicationthose done on alcohol intoxication– Prosecution points out that alcohol has a Prosecution points out that alcohol has a

biological impact; TV doesn’tbiological impact; TV doesn’t

Judge shuts it down when Dr. Thomas Judge shuts it down when Dr. Thomas cannot link TV with legal insanitycannot link TV with legal insanity– Though she does say TV affects the sense of Though she does say TV affects the sense of

right and wrongright and wrong

Zamora v. State (1978)Zamora v. State (1978)

““She would have been, however, unable to She would have been, however, unable to testify that watching violent television programs testify that watching violent television programs to excess affects an individual to the extent that to excess affects an individual to the extent that said individual would not be able to distinguish said individual would not be able to distinguish between right and wrong”between right and wrong”““The only theory of the case that had support in The only theory of the case that had support in the law was insanity, based upon the M'Naghten the law was insanity, based upon the M'Naghten standard. Testimony that would not have tended standard. Testimony that would not have tended to prove or disprove insanity was properly to prove or disprove insanity was properly excluded, as being irrelevant.”excluded, as being irrelevant.”Agree?Agree?– Accurate portrayal from the transcript?Accurate portrayal from the transcript?

Other ZamoraOther Zamora

Rubin stated: "Of course, Ronny knew Rubin stated: "Of course, Ronny knew right from wrong, but I don't think that any right from wrong, but I don't think that any doctor has told you that he wasn't a doctor has told you that he wasn't a sociopathic personality who could not sociopathic personality who could not refrain from doing wrong, and he didn't refrain from doing wrong, and he didn't care whether he did wrong. And from care whether he did wrong. And from thousands of murderers that he had seen thousands of murderers that he had seen this was a conditioned reflex." this was a conditioned reflex." Zamora v. Wainwright, No. 84-1895, Second Report of United States Magistrate at 18 Zamora v. Wainwright, No. 84-1895, Second Report of United States Magistrate at 18 (S.D.Fla. Mar. 10, 1986)(S.D.Fla. Mar. 10, 1986)

Playing with FirePlaying with Fire

media-violence researchers are guilty of media-violence researchers are guilty of ““a lot of sloppy thinking about causality”a lot of sloppy thinking about causality”

““doesn’t pass the giggle test”doesn’t pass the giggle test”

Jeffrey FaganJeffrey Fagan

Issues:Issues:- ReliabilityReliability

- Time effectsTime effects

Huesmann StudyHuesmann Study

Longitudinal (15 years) with boys and girlsLongitudinal (15 years) with boys and girls

Other studiesOther studies– Mostly single-shotMostly single-shot– Longitudinal study (22 years) done on only Longitudinal study (22 years) done on only

boysboys– 3 year study done on boys and girls3 year study done on boys and girls


Purpose: Purpose:

To compare observational learning and To compare observational learning and desensitization theories with “preference desensitization theories with “preference for violence” and “third variable” theoriesfor violence” and “third variable” theories– preference for violencepreference for violence

Provoking others; justified by violence in mediaProvoking others; justified by violence in media

– third variablethird variableOther factors: SES; IQ; parental habitsOther factors: SES; IQ; parental habits


Sample:Sample:Interviewed classmates to find aggressive children in late Interviewed classmates to find aggressive children in late 1970s1970s

Tracked down participants 15 years laterTracked down participants 15 years later


Childhood Measures:Childhood Measures:Childhood TV-violence viewingChildhood TV-violence viewing– Favorite shows & watching frequencyFavorite shows & watching frequency– Ranking 1-5 by two ‘rankers’ for violenceRanking 1-5 by two ‘rankers’ for violence

very violent: Starsky and Hutch, The Six Million Dollar Man, & Roadrunnervery violent: Starsky and Hutch, The Six Million Dollar Man, & RoadrunnerOnly 75% interrater reliabilityOnly 75% interrater reliability

Childhood identification with aggressive TV charactersChildhood identification with aggressive TV characters– Scale of 0-2 on how much they id with adult aggressive charactersScale of 0-2 on how much they id with adult aggressive characters

Childhood judgments of realism of TV violenceChildhood judgments of realism of TV violence– Scale 1-3 of how much show is like real lifeScale 1-3 of how much show is like real life

Childhood aggressive behaviorChildhood aggressive behavior– Peer Nominated Index of AggressionPeer Nominated Index of Aggression

Childhood intellectual abilityChildhood intellectual ability– California Achievement TestCalifornia Achievement Test


Parent Measures:Parent Measures:SESSES– Education levelsEducation levels– Father’s occupation (for cross validation)Father’s occupation (for cross validation)

AggressionAggression– Self-reportsSelf-reports

Rejection of the childRejection of the childNurturance of the child Nurturance of the child Harsh punishment of the child Harsh punishment of the child Mobility orientation Mobility orientation TV usage TV usage – TV-viewing frequencyTV-viewing frequency– TV-violence viewingTV-violence viewing– self-reportsself-reports

How?


Adult Measures:Adult Measures:

Adult TV-violence viewingAdult TV-violence viewing– interrater correlations from .39 to .96 interrater correlations from .39 to .96 – mean of .78mean of .78

Adult aggressive behaviorAdult aggressive behavior– self-reportsself-reports– ““other” personsother” persons– archival state dataarchival state data

Composite Aggression ScoreComposite Aggression Score


Results:Results:


For both male and female:For both male and female:– significant correlation between childhood TV-violence viewing and adult significant correlation between childhood TV-violence viewing and adult

aggression aggression For only femaleFor only female– adult TV-violence viewing correlates with adult aggressionadult TV-violence viewing correlates with adult aggression– women’s adult TV-violence viewing predicted by childhood TV-violence viewingwomen’s adult TV-violence viewing predicted by childhood TV-violence viewing

Huesmann StudyHuesmann StudyControlling for parental variables:Controlling for parental variables:

= No effect on adult aggression= No effect on adult aggression


Limitations:Limitations:Reinterviewed participants vs. lost participants: Reinterviewed participants vs. lost participants: – originally more aggressive and antisocial participants originally more aggressive and antisocial participants

are underrepresented in the follow-up intervieware underrepresented in the follow-up interview– reinterviewed sample scored higher than those not reinterviewed sample scored higher than those not

reinterviewed on childhood intellectual ability and on reinterviewed on childhood intellectual ability and on parents’ education parents’ education

suggests that the reinterviewed sample is a less “at suggests that the reinterviewed sample is a less “at risk” part of the original samplerisk” part of the original sample

Self-reporting for parents and adultsSelf-reporting for parents and adultsThird variable?Third variable?Others?Others?

The EndThe End

Syndromes and Other Cultural Defenses Part II April 12, 2006 Law & Social Science.

Documents

Transcript of Syndromes and Other Cultural Defenses Part II April 12, 2006 Law & Social Science.