PLoS ONE 1:1-17 (2019)

Authors
Karina Vold
University of Toronto, St. George Campus
Corey Allen
Georgia State University
Abstract
Legal theorists have characterized physical evidence of brain dysfunction as a double-edged sword, wherein the very quality that reduces the defendant’s responsibility for his transgression could simultaneously increase motivations to punish him by virtue of his apparently increased dangerousness. However, empirical evidence of this pattern has been elusive, perhaps owing to a heavy reliance on singular measures that fail to distinguish between plural, often competing internal motivations for punishment. The present study employed a test of the theorized double-edge pattern using a novel approach designed to separate such motivations. We asked a large sample of participants (N = 330) to render criminal sentencing judgments under varying conditions of the defendant’s mental health status (Healthy, Neurobiological Disorder, Psychological Disorder) and the disorder’s treatability (Treatable, Untreatable). As predicted, neurobiological evidence simultaneously elicited shorter prison sentences (i.e., mitigating) and longer terms of involuntary hospitalization (i.e., aggravating) than equivalent psychological evidence. However, these effects were not well explained by motivations to restore treatable defendants to health or to protect society from dangerous persons but instead by deontological motivations pertaining to the defendant’s level of deservingness and possible obligation to provide medical care. This is the first study of its kind to quantitatively demonstrate the paradoxical effect of neuroscientific trial evidence and raises implications for how such evidence is presented and evaluated.
Keywords punishment  sentencing  responsibility  neuroscience  scientific evidence  legal decision making
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Upload history
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

What Difference Do Brain Images Make in US Criminal Trials?Valerie Gray Hardcastle & Edward Lamb - 2018 - Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 24 (4):909-915.
[Appeal to Parents].[author unknown] - 1893 - Mind 2 (7):420-424.

View all 6 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Psychopathy, Genes, and the Criminal Justice System.Paula Kim - 2014 - The Columbia Science and Technology Law Review 15:375-400.
Victim's Rights in Capital Sentencing.Shannon Krenkel - 1996 - Dissertation, University of Miami
Why Should Remorse Be a Mitigating Factor in Sentencing?Steven Keith Tudor - 2008 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 2 (3):241-257.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2018-12-29

Total views
143 ( #61,570 of 2,331,392 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
19 ( #32,371 of 2,331,392 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes