RESUMO
The purpose was to estimate the relationship between a defendant's stated intelligence on perceptions of his sanity and responsibility. This analog study was a 2 (occupation of defendant) x 2 (seriousness of outcome) between-subjects design. A scenario involving an insanity defense was read by 190 college students who then answered a 12-item questionnaire. The hypothesis that participants would attribute less responsibility to less intelligent defendants than to more intelligent ones was partially supported. Belief in a Just World moderated these evaluations. Seriousness of outcome influenced men's perceptions of the defendant's insanity, responsibility, and sentence, but not women's. Participants seemed to be more willing to accept the possibility that the defendant was insane if the outcome of his crime was not serious.
