A comparison of sentencing decisions and their justification between professional judges and laypeople in Japan

Watamura, Eiichiro; Wakebe, Toshihiro; Ioku, Tomohiro

doi:10.1007/s43545-022-00353-4

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…On the other hand, judges may respond differently to our materials for several reasons. Judges may hold a more homogenous view of the aims of the criminal legal system than do lay people [e.g., 59 , although see also 60 ] which likely stems from years of training and experiences. Given this, it may be more challenging for judges to flexibly adopt a different view.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of neuroscientific evidence on sentencing depends on how one conceives of reasons for incarceration

Perricone

Baskin‐Sommers²,

Ahn³

2022

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Neuroscientific evidence is increasingly utilized in criminal legal proceedings, prompting discussions about how such evidence might influence legal decisions. The effect of neuroscientific testimony on legal decisions remains uncertain, with some studies finding no effect, others reporting that neuroscience has a mitigating impact, and some indicating neuroscience evidence has an aggravating effect. The present study attempts to explain these divergent findings by showing that the effect of neuroscience evidence on sentencing interacts with beliefs about the goals of the criminal legal system. Using a between-subjects design, participants (N = 784) were asked to assume different rationales for imprisonment, before receiving neuroscientific evidence about antisocial behavior and its potential relation to the defendant. Participants recommended a sentence for the defendant prior to and after reading the neuroscientific evidence. Participants who were given the rationale of retribution as the primary goal of imprisonment significantly decreased their sentencing recommendations. When the goal of imprisonment was to protect the public from dangerous people, participants provided longer post-testimony sentences. Lastly, when the goal was to rehabilitate wrongdoers, participants also increased sentences from pre to post. Thus, the impact of neuroscientific evidence is not monolithic, but can lead to either mitigated or aggravated sentences by interacting with penal philosophy.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%