請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件：
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/72631完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 趙儀珊(Yee-San Teoh) | |
| dc.contributor.author | Chi-Huang Liu | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 劉啟鍠 | zh_TW |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-17T07:02:19Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2019-08-07 | |
| dc.date.copyright | 2019-08-07 | |
| dc.date.issued | 2019 | |
| dc.date.submitted | 2019-07-31 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | 游正名、 楊添圍、 周仁宇、許欣偉、盧慧華、陳喬琪、胡維恆（2005）：〈精神鑑定結論與法院裁判認定間不一致現象之分析（第一報）：犯行時之精神狀態〉。《臺灣精神醫學》，19，225-236。doi:10.29478/TJP.200509.0007
張麗卿（2004）：〈精神鑑定的問題與挑戰〉。《東海大學法學研究》， 20，153-184。 Appelbaum, P. S., & Scurich, N. (2014). Impact of behavioral genetic evidence on the adjudication of criminal behavior. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 42, 91-100. Appelbaum, P. S., Scurich, N., & Raad, R. (2015). Effects of behavioral genetic evidence on perceptions of criminal responsibility and appropriate punishment. Psychology Public Policy and Law, 21, 134-144. doi:10.1037/law0000039 Aspinwall, L. G., Brown, T. R., & Tabery, J. (2012). The double-edged sword: Does biomechanism increase or decrease judges' sentencing of psychopaths? Science, 337, 846-849. Barnett, M. E., Brodsky, S. L., & Davis, C. M. (2004). When mitigation evidence makes a difference: Effects of psychological mitigating evidence on sentencing decisions in capital trials. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 22, 751-770. doi:10.1002/bsl.591 Barnett, M. E., Brodsky, S. L., & Price, J. R. (2007). Differential impact of mitigating evidence in capital case sentencing. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 7, 39-45. doi:10.1300/J158v07n01)04 Berryessa, C. M. (2018). The effects of psychiatric and 'biological' labels on lay sentencing and punishment decisions. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 14, 241-256. doi:10.1007/s11292-018-9322-x Bloechl, A. L., Vitacco, M. J., Neumann, C. S., & Erickson, S. E. (2007). An empirical investigation of insanity defense attitudes: Exploring factors related to bias. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 30, 153-161. doi:10.1016/j.ijlp.2006.03.007 Carlsmith, K. M. (2006). The roles of retribution and utility in determining punishment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 437-451. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2005.06.007 Carlsmith, K. M., Darley, J. M., & Robinson, P. H. (2002). Why do we punish? Deterrence and just deserts as motives for punishment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 284-299. Cheung, B. Y., & Heine, S. J. (2015). The double-edged sword of genetic accounts of criminality: Causal attributions from genetic ascriptions affect legal decision making. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41, 1723-1738. doi:10.1177/0146167215610520 Chiricos, T., Welch, K., & Gertz, M. (2004). Racial typification of crime and support for punitive measures. Criminology, 42, 359-389. Corrigan, P. W. (2000). Mental health stigma as social attribution: Implications for research methods and attitude change. Clinical Psychology-Science and Practice, 7, 48-67. doi:10.1093/clipsy/7.1.48 Costelloe, M. T., Chiricos, T., & Gertz, M. (2009). Punitive attitudes toward criminals. Punishment & Society-International Journal of Penology, 11, 25-49. doi:10.1177/1462474508098131 Cushman, F. (2008). Crime and punishment: Distinguishing the roles of causal and intentional analyses in moral judgment. Cognition, 108, 353-380. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2008.03.006 Dar-Nimrod, I., & Heine, S. J. (2011). Genetic essentialism: On the deceptive determinism of DNA. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 800-818. doi:10.1037/a0021860 Darley, J. M., Carlsmith, K. M., & Robinson, P. H. (2000). Incapacitation and just deserts as motives for punishment. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 659-683. doi: 10.1023/A:1005552203727 Haghighi, B., & Lopez, A. (1998). Gender and perception of prisons and prisoners. Journal of Criminal Justice, 26, 453-464. doi: 10.1016/S0047-2352(98)00023-3 Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Publications. Keller, L. B., Oswald, M. E., Stucki, I., & Gollwitzer, M. (2010). A closer look at an eye for an eye: Laypersons' punishment decisions are primarily driven by retributive motives. Social Justice Research, 23, 99-116. doi:10.1007/s11211-010-0113-4 Kim, J., Boytos, A., Seong, Y., & Park, K. (2015). The influence of biomedical information and childhood history on sentencing. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 33, 815-826. doi:10.1002/bsl.2199 King, R. D., & Wheelock, D. (2007). Group threat and social control: Race, perceptions of minorities and the desire to punish. Social Forces, 85, 1255-1280. doi:10.1353/sof.2007.0045 Krauss, D. A., Gongola, J., Scurich, N., & Busch, B. (2018). Mental state at time of offense in the hot tub: An empirical examination of concurrent expert testimony in an insanity case. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 36, 358-372. doi:10.1002/bsl.2348 Maruna, S., & King, A. (2009). Once a criminal, always a criminal?: 'Redeemability' and the psychology of punitive public attitudes. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 15, 7-24. doi:10.1007/s10610-008-9088-1 Monterosso, J., Royzman, E. B., & Schwartz, B. (2005). Explaining away responsibility: Effects of scientific explanation on perceived culpability. Ethics & Behavior, 15, 139-158. doi:10.1207/s15327019eb1502_4 Rendell, J. A., Huss, M. T., & Jensen, M. L. (2010). Expert testimony and the effects of a biological approach, psychopathy, and juror attitudes in cases of insanity. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 28, 411-425. doi:10.1002/bsl.913 Robbins, P., & Litton, P. (2018). Crime, punishment, and causation: The effect of etiological information on the perception of moral agency. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 24, 118-127. doi:10.1037/law0000146 Sandys, M., Pruss, H. C., & Walsh, S. M. (2009). Aggravation and mitigation: Findings and implications. The Journal of Psychiatry and law, 37, 189-236. Schweitzer, N. J., Saks, M. J., Murphy, E. R., Roskies, A. L., Sinnott-Armstrong, W., & Gaudet, L. M. (2011). Neuroimages as evidence in a mens rea defense: No impact. Psychology Public Policy and Law, 17, 357-393. doi:10.1037/a0023581 Scurich, N., & Appelbaum, P. (2016). The blunt-edged sword: Genetic explanations of misbehavior neither mitigate nor aggravate punishment. Journal of Law and the Biosciences, 3, 140-157. doi:10.1093/jlb/lsv053 Skeem, J. L., Louden, J. E., & Evans, J. (2004). Venirepersons's attitudes toward the insanity defense: Developing, refining, and validating a scale. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 623-648. doi:10.1007/s10979-004-0487-7 Spiranovic, C. A., Roberts, L. D., & Indermaur, D. (2012). What predicts punitiveness? An examination of predictors of punitive attitudes towards offenders in Australia. Psychiatry Psychology and Law, 19, 249-261. doi:10.1080/13218719.2011.561766 Tetterton, V. S., & Brodsky, S. L. (2007). More is sometimes better: Increased mitigating evidence and sentencing leniency. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 7, 79-85. doi:10.1300/J158v07n03_05 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/72631 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 有鑑於精神疾病違法者的爭議性，本研究欲探討：一、生理性資訊、先/後天資訊在對精神疾病違法者的懲罰嚴厲性的影響。二、對精神疾病違法者的懲罰動機較接近應報或隔離，以及在各實驗條件下是否有所不同。三、在不同實驗條件下，懲罰傾向以及對精神疾患違法者的態度對於懲罰嚴厲性的影響，以及影響的機制。研究中呈現一起重傷害案件，並操弄被告精神疾病鑑定中的生理性資訊、先/後天資訊。參與者會回答對違法者知覺，另外必須在呈現懲罰動機引導前後各評估一次欲給予被告的懲罰嚴厲性。個體差異的測量包括懲罰傾向量表與精神障礙辯護態度量表（IDA-R）。結果顯示，在控制個體差異後，生理性資訊只在沒有提供先/後天資訊時會有顯著減輕懲罰嚴厲性，另外生理性資訊在懲罰傾向與IDA-SL對懲罰嚴厲性有調節效果。最後，透過混合設計四因子變異數分析發現，無論在哪個實驗條件，參與者的懲罰動機較接近應報，會激發應報動機的對違法者知覺也會中介個體差異對懲罰嚴厲性的影響。 文末討論了這個研究在司法實務的意義。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | In light of the controversy surrounding mentally ill offenders, this study aimed to explore the following questions: 1. The influence of biological and nature/nurture information on punishment severity for mentally ill offenders. 2.The motivation of punishment for mentally ill offenders, and whether it differs depending on the information provided. 3. Under different experimental conditions, the influence of punitiveness and attitude toward mentally ill offenders on punishment severity and the mechanism involved. In this study, a case of aggravated assault was presented, and the researcher manipulated the biological and nature/nurture information presented in a psychiatric evaluation. Participants rated perception of the offender, and the severity of punishment before and after a direction of motivation. Measurement of individual differences included a punitiveness scale and Insanity Defense Attitude (IDA-R) scale. The results showed that controlling for individual differences, biological information only mitigated punishment severity when no nature/nurture information was provided. In addition, biological information had a moderating effect on the relation between punitiveness and punishment severity, and also on the relation between IDA-SL and punishment severity. Finally, Using a 4 way mixed design ANOVA, the researcher found that regardless of experimental condition, participants’ motivation for punishment were more likely to be geared towards retribution, and the perceptions which would activate motivation of retribution mediated the relations between individual differences and punishment severity. The implications for forensic practice were discussed. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-17T07:02:19Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-108-R06227134-1.pdf: 1605345 bytes, checksum: 2ae8d6a1bcfc44b98c87f11c8f13fa0e (MD5) Previous issue date: 2019 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究動機 1 第二節 精神疾病違法者的特殊性－「身」還是「心」的異常？ 2 第三節 懲罰嚴厲性與懲罰的動機 3 第四節 過去相關研究的矛盾 5 第五節 懲罰者的個體差異 7 第六節 小結與本研究目的 9 第二章 方法 11 第一節 參與者 11 第二節 研究程序 11 第三節 研究操弄 13 第四節 測量 13 第三章 結果 17 第一節 操弄檢核 17 第二節 懲罰的動機 18 第三節 個體差異與生理性資訊、先後天資訊對懲罰嚴厲性的影響 22 第四節 對違法者知覺在個體差異對懲罰嚴厲性之中介模型 30 第五節 生理性資訊、個體差異與懲罰動機之中介調節模型 33 第四章 結論與討論 37 第一節 綜合討論 37 第二節 研究意義與貢獻 38 第三節 研究限制 39 第四節 結語 41 參考文獻 43 附錄 49 | |
| dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
| dc.subject | 精神障礙辯護態度 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 懲罰傾向 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 先/後天資訊 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 生理性資訊 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 懲罰動機 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 精神疾病違法者 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 懲罰嚴厲性 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | punishment severity | en |
| dc.subject | Insanity Defense Attitude | en |
| dc.subject | mentally ill offender | en |
| dc.subject | punitiveness | en |
| dc.subject | nature/nurture information | en |
| dc.subject | biological information | en |
| dc.subject | motivation of punishment | en |
| dc.title | 對精神疾病違法者之懲罰嚴厲性與動機－生理性資訊、先/後天資訊與個體差異 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | Severity and Motivation of Punishment towards Mentally Ill Offenders – Biological Information, Nature/Nurture Information and Individual Differences | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 107-2 | |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 孫蒨如(Chien-Ru Sun),張仁和(Jen-Ho Chang) | |
| dc.subject.keyword | 精神疾病違法者,懲罰嚴厲性,懲罰動機,生理性資訊,先/後天資訊,懲罰傾向,精神障礙辯護態度, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | mentally ill offender,punishment severity,motivation of punishment,biological information,nature/nurture information,punitiveness,Insanity Defense Attitude, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 50 | |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU201902261 | |
| dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
| dc.date.accepted | 2019-07-31 | |
| dc.contributor.author-college | 理學院 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author-dept | 心理學研究所 | zh_TW |
| 顯示於系所單位： | 心理學系 | |
文件中的檔案：
| 檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ntu-108-1.pdf 未授權公開取用 | 1.57 MB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件，除了特別指名其著作權條款之外，均受到著作權保護，並且保留所有的權利。