ABSTRACT
Legal attitudes, religion, and attributions relate to insanity defense attitudes and legal decisions in insanity cases. Religious fundamentalism has consistently predicted punitiveness associated with insanity; however, the current research focuses on moral disengagement as an explanatory link in the fundamentalist and insanity chain. Additional exploratory interests examined how defendants' perceived proximity to jurors might act as a potential moderator. The current study uses factorial survey design to examine the relationships between the variables using a mock jury insanity trial. Results suggest religious fundamentalism is related to harsher verdicts and sentences, and these relationships are mediated by moral disengagement attributions, authoritarian attitudes towards the persons with mental illness, and negative attitudes towards the insanity defense. Based on findings, prosecution and defense should consider moral and religious themes presented in their arguments. Additionally, defendants pleading insanity should be aware of how juror attitudes and biases might affect the trial and verdict processes.
