Who is on death row (with focus on MR/IQ)? Cunningham and Vigen (2002) review

Who is on death row? What are the intellectual capabilities of individuals facing execution?

The following 2002 literature review attempted to answer the above (and more) questions. Whether the findings of this 7 year old survey hold true today is not known. If I can find relevant information I will post it.

• Cunningham, M. D. and Vigen, M. P. (2002). Death Row Inmate Characteristics, Adjustment, and Confinement: A Critical Review of the Literature. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 20, 191–210 (click here to view).

ARTICLE SUMMARY

[note: Italics are direct quotes. Underline is emphasis added by the blogmaster]

Abstract

This article reviews and summarizes research on death row inmates. The contributions and weaknesses of death row demographic data, clinical studies, and research based on institutional records are critiqued. Our analysis shows that death row inmates are overwhelmingly male and disproportionately Southern. Racial representation remains controversial. Frequently death row inmates are intellectually limited and academically deficient. Histories of significant neurological insult are common, as are developmental histories of trauma, family disruption, and substance abuse. Rates of psychological disorder among death row inmates are high, with conditions of confinement appearing to precipitate or aggravate these disorders. Contrary to expectation, the extant research indicates that the majority of death row inmates do not exhibit violence in prison even in more open institutional settings. These findings have implications for forensic mental health sentencing evaluations, competent attorney representation, provision of mental health services, racial disparity in death sentences, death row security and confinement policies, and moral culpability considerations. Future research directions on death row populations are suggested.

According to Cunningham and Vigen (hereafter referred to as the "authors"), the research "literature on death row inmates has not been comprehensively summarized and reviewed. This article attempts to fill that void by reviewing the extant literature on the characteristics of death row inmates, their adjustment to prison, and their conditions of confinement."

The scope of coverage of this review article is impossible to summarize in a single blog post. More importantly, the focus of this blog is on the mental retardation/intellectual competence characteristics of this population. As thus, this post will only summarize the information in this survey article related to this focus. Other topics discussed (methodological review of prior research; woman, race, psychological disorders, neurological disorders, drug use, etc. issues) will not be covered (readers can view the original article for this information)


According to the authors:

• Eleven of the 13 clinical studies reported data on the intellectual capability of death row samples. Mean IQ scores were in the average to low average range, generally consistent with the intellectual capabilities of general prison population inmates (Panton, 1976). A significant minority of death row inmates, though, exhibited marked intellectual limitations. For example, 27% of the Mississippi death row sample investigated by Cunningham and Vigen (1999) had WAIS-R Verbal IQ scores below 74.

• Similarly, Frierson et al. (1998) reported that 28% of their death row sample obtained IQ scores in the borderline or mentally retarded classifications.

• National demographic data (Snell, 2001) indicate that 52.3% of death row inmates did not finish high school and 12.7% attended only to the eighth grade or less. Median formal education was 11th grade. These rates of educational attainment are similar to or only modestly lower than those observed in the general state prison population nationwide

• Clinical studies on death row inmates found a somewhat lower level of formal education, typically reporting a mean of ninth grade schooling.

Authors Conclusions:

While much of the research on death row inmates has limitations in specificity, sampling, methodology, and reporting, there are a number of recurrent findings. To summarize these, death row inmates are overwhelmingly male and disproportionately Southern. Over half of death row inmates are non-whites. A majority did not graduate from high school. Mean IQ scores of death row inmates are in the low average-to-average range, but a disturbingly large minority exhibits IQ scores in the borderline and mental retardation ranges. Functional literacy capabilities are well below what would be expected from the years of schooling attended. Whether these literacy deficits are the result of learning disabilities or other factors cannot be determined from the current data. There is also a significant incidence of neurological and neuropsychological abnormalities among death row inmates. Psychological disorders are quite frequent among death row inmates. The particularly adverse conditions of death row confinement in some jurisdictions appear to not only undermine efforts to adaptively cope, but also act to aggravate psychological symptoms. Current prison mental health interventions are insufficient.

Policy Implications (as per authors)

given the conclusions of the clinical studies, mental health experts performing forensic evaluations at capital sentencing should be attentive to the presence of neurological abnormalities, learning disabilities, psychiatric disorders, and traumatic developmental histories. These vulnerabilities were more frequently identified in studies that undertook broader and more time intensive evaluations. This speaks to the need for comprehensive examinations as well as sufficient interview duration for reasonable self-disclosure to occur. Adequate forensic evaluation at sentencing, therefore, requires particularly careful assessment of the vulnerabilities of this population, as well as knowledge of the current literature regarding the behavioral implications of these deficiencies and underlying adverse developmental factors.

the intellectual, literacy, and psychological deficits of most death row inmates render them incapable of responding to the demands of direct appeals or postconviction proceedings without the assistance and representation of qualified legal counsel

the significant percentage of racial minorities, and particularly African– Americans, on death row nationwide has varying interpretations—the most disturbing of these asserting that racial bias in the application of the death penalty, whether by race of offender or race of victim, is both a historical legacy and a continuing social policy problem.

the incidence of psychological symptoms and mental health problems among death row inmates calls for comprehensive mental health services. Effective treatment of psychological symptoms and disorders among death row inmates is not only humane, but likely to facilitate institutional management and reduce disciplinary misconduct.

it is disturbing that so many inmates on death row are so obviously damaged—developmentally, intellectually, educationally, neurologically, and psychologically. To the extent that the death penalty is intended to punish those murderers who are most morally culpable, there would seem to be some miscarriage of that intent when it is visited upon individuals who are manifestly damaged, deficient, or disturbed in their psychological development and functioning.

Technorati Tags: psychology, forensic psychology, neuropsychology, educational psychology, developmental, IQ, intelligence, IQ scores, death penalty, capital punishment, mental retardation, MR, Atkins cases, U. S. Supreme Court

Intellectual competence of juvenile defendants: Does it influence jurors?

Does the intellectual competence of juvenile defendants influence the decisions of juries? The following article, via the use of mock trail methodology, attempted to answer this question.

Najdowski, C., Bottoms, B, & Vargas, M. (2009). Jurors’ Perceptions of Juvenile Defendants: The Influence of Intellectual Disability, Abuse History, and Confession Evidencey. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 27, 401–430. (click here to view/read entire article)




Abstract

Understanding jurors’ perceptions of juvenile defendants has become increasingly important as more and more juvenile cases are being tried in adult criminal court rather than family or juvenile court. Intellectual disability and child maltreatment are overrepresented among juvenile delinquents, and juveniles (particularly disabled juveniles) are at heightened risk for falsely confessing to crimes. In two mock trial experiments, we examined the effects of disability, abuse history, and confession evidence on jurors’ perceptions of a juvenile defendant across several different crime scenarios. Abused juveniles were treated more leniently than nonabused juveniles only when the juvenile’s crime was motivated by self-defense against the abuser. Jurors used disability as a mitigating factor, making more lenient judgments for a disabled than a nondisabled juvenile. Jurors also completely discounted a coerced confession for a disabled juvenile, but not for a nondisabled juvenile. In fact, compared with when it was portrayed juvenile’s policy and directions for future research are discussed.

Article highlights

• According to the authors, 7 % of juveniles in the justice system are referred directly to criminal court, and often face a jury.

• According to research cited by the authors "juveniles in the legal system are especially likely to be intellectually disabled...or have a history of child maltreatment...and they are at heightened risk for falsely confessing to crimes they did not commit." As a result, the authors conducted this study to "understand the influence of these variables on jurors’ perceptions of juvenile defendants. In two studies, we used a mock trial paradigm to examine jurors’ perceptions and judgments in criminal cases involving a juvenile defendant. In Study 1, we examined the influence of a juvenile’s history of childhood abuse and intellectual disability; in Study 2, we continued our examination of intellectual disability, but also studied the influence of a juvenile’s confession on jurors’ perceptions and judgments."

• The importance of this research, according to the authors, is captured in the follow passage: "Approximately one-fourth of proven false confessors are intellectually disabled adults or juveniles (Drizin & Leo, 2004; Leo & Ofshe, 1998). Intellectually disabled juveniles may not be competent to make decisions about confessing (i.e. to truthfully confess or not confess to a crime committed, or to falsely confess or not confess to a crime not committed) because of comprehension and reasoning impairments (see, e.g., Goldstein, Kalbeitzer, Zelle, & Romaine, 2006) and heightened suggestibility—they are more vulnerable than nondisabled juveniles to even subtle psychological influence, persuasion, deception, and coercion (Clare & Gudjonsson, 1993; Gudjonsson & Henry, 2003; Henry & Gudjonsson, 1999; Milne, Clare, & Bull, 2002; Young, Powell, & Dudgeon, 2003; but see Henry & Gudjonsson, 2003). In light of evidence that police often use the same coercive interrogation strategies with children and youth as they do with adults (Meyer & Reppucci, 2007), there is substantial cause for concern that innocent disabled juveniles are at risk for falsely confessing to crimes they did not commit. Jurors are strongly biased to perceive adults’ confessions as true (Kassin, 2005; Kassin & Gudjonsson, 2004), and they convict adults who confess under coercive circumstances just as often as adults who confess voluntarily (see, e.g., Kassin & McNall, 1991; Kassin & Sukel, 1997)."

• Apparently little research has examined the influence of perception of intellectual disability on jurors decisions. Of the limited research available, "results supported the researchers’ theory that jurors consider an intellectually disabled victim (like a young child) as more honest and less cognitively able to fabricate false accusations than a victim of average intelligence."

• Based on research with adult defendants, the authors note that "most jurors (71%) reported that they were or would have been less likely to vote for the death penalty if the defendant was mentally retarded." The hypothesis is that an intellectually disabled adult is viewed as "less cognitively and criminally sophisticated than a nondisabled adult, and therefore less capable of planning and completing complex crimes such as burglary and assault but competent to commit a less complex crime like vandalism."

• These findings have been explained by the patronization effect..."a tendency for people to attribute disabled adults’ behavior to external rather than internal factors and attribute less responsibility to disabled compared with nondisabled individuals, presumably driven by beliefs that disabled individuals are incompetent and have little control over their own lives." The patronization effect is believed to be based on the discounting principle, "whereby people discount possible internal causes for behavior when a more plausible external cause exists; in this case, intellectual disability may signal jurors to search for alternative external explanations."

• To examine whether such effects would extend to cases involving juvenile defendants, these researchers conducted two related mock trial studies that varied the type of crime and whether a juvenile defendant was intellectually disabled.

Based on the two studies, the author offered the following conclusion:

In conclusion, we have applied social psychological theories and methods to investigate legally relevant questions about jurors’ reactions to cases involving youthful defendants. Our work shows that intellectual disability, a history of child maltreatment, and circumstances surrounding confession all influence jurors’ judgments. Future research should build on our initial findings, by testing similar variables under more ecologically valid conditions and by expanding our work to other variables present in the unique situation of criminal trials involving juvenile defendants. Such research is important for research psychologists interested in testing theories related to legal decision making, but it is also important for applied, practical reasons. Professionals within the legal system need to understand how jurors react to juveniles accused of crimes and how they reach their verdicts in cases involving juveniles. Such increased understanding has the potential to lead to change, change that can help ensure fairness for some of the most vulnerable defendants in our legal system.

Technorati Tags: psychology, school psychology, forensic psychology, neuropsycholog, criminology, juvenile justice, educational psychology, mock trials, death penalty, discounting principle, patronizing effect, juveniles, adolescents

Applied Neuropsychology (2009, V16-2) special MR death penalty issue: Editor intro article

The latest issue of Applied Neuropsychology (the table of contents which was provided at this blog previously) includes a series of papers that grew out of the symposium Controversies in Determination of Mental Retardation in Death Penalty Appeals at the annual (2007) American Psychological Association in San Francisco.

Dr. Stephen Greenspan is the editor for the special issue. His introductory article, Assessment and Diagnosis of Mental Retardation in Death Penalty Cases: Introduction and Overview of the Special 'Atkins’ Issue, organizes the articles around three "prongs" used in the definition of mental retardation.

• Intellectual functioning
• Adaptive functioning
• Developmental onset

Most articles fall under one of these three prongs, but a few don't. According to Greenspan, "The final paper, by Olley, addresses the need for psychologists testifying in Atkins cases to have relevant training and experienceinvolving people with mild mental retardation functioning in community settings." Oiley's article articulates the need for experts, who testify or provide declarations for the court in Atkins cases, should have "an adequate understanding of mild mental retardation and, in particular, to avoid making intuitive-clinical judgments based on inappropriate stereotypes more appropriate to people with moderate or severe."

A few other tidbits gleaned from Dr. Greenspan's introductory article follow below:

• A major problem with Atkins cases is that the diagnostic criteria often vary across different state laws and court systems. Many states use an IQ cut-off score of 70 while others allow more flexibility based on psychometric principles such as measurement error (standard error of measurement - more on this in a later post). Thus, a 75 in one state may not meet the diagnostic criteria for MR...while in another it may be considered as a valid score for an individual with MR.
  

• Most states use either the MR criteria published by the American Psychiatric Association (DSM) or the so-called ‘‘red book’’ of the American Association on Mental Retardation (AAMR, recently changed to AAIDD).

• Two issues in intellectual assessment that are very common are the Flynn Effect and the determination of intellectual or adaptive malingering during assessments.
  

• Prong three (developmental criterion) is usually given the least amount of attention in Atkins proceedings.

Technorati Tags: psychology, educational psychology, neuropsychology, forensic psychology, school psychology, developmental, Atkins cases, death penalty, capital punishment, MR, mental retardation, developmental disabilities, Applied Neruopsychology, Stephen Greenspan, IQ, IQ tests, IQ scores, malignering

Behavioral Sciences & Law (2009, V27): Neuroscience, psychology, moral decsion making and the law

A recent issue Behavioral Sciences and the Law (2009, V27) may indirectly relate to mental retardation death penalty cases. The issue deals with The Neuroscience and Psychology of Moral Decision Making and the Law. A copy of the editors (Erickson et al., 2009) introductory article can be found here.