A jury of scientists: Formal education in biobehavioral sciences reduces the odds of punitive criminal sentencing

Abstract

This study examines how formal education in biological and behavioral sciences may impact punishment intuitions (views on criminal sentencing, free will, responsibility, and dangerousness) in cases involving neurobiological evidence. In a survey experiment, we compared intuitions between biobehavioral science and non‐science university graduates by presenting them with a baseline case without a neurobiological explanation for offending followed by one of two cases with a neurobiological explanation (described as either innate or acquired biological influences to offending). An ordinal logistic regression indicated that both science and non‐science graduates selected significantly more severe punishments for the baseline case as compared to when an innate neurobiological explanation for offending was provided. However, across all cases, science graduates selected significantly less severe sentences than non‐science graduates, and only science graduates' decisions were mediated by free will and responsibility attributions. Findings are discussed in relation to scientific understandings of behavior, the impact of science education on attitudes towards punishment, and potential criminal‐legal implications.

Mental Illness as a Sentencing Determinant: A Comparative Case Law Analysis Based on a Machine Learning Approach

“…These findings add to previous research on how various types of mental disorders may lead to differential mitigating effects for sentencing (Douds et al, 2013; Johnson & Elbogen, 2013; Perlin, 2015) as well as suggest how introducing evidence of different mental disorders could potentially represent a double-edge sword in sentencing determinations (Aspinwall et al, 2012; Cheung & Heine, 2015). Indeed, stemming from one’s views and experiences with mental illness, educational background, and exposure to the media (Micle et al, 2013; Thomaidou & Berryessa, 2022), research suggests that sentencing considerations may be extra-legally affected by views on the dangerousness, responsibility, and treatability of individuals based on their specific type of mental disorder diagnosis (Berryessa, 2018a, 2018b).…”

The use of neurobiological evidence in sentencing mitigation

“…In a study of German law students tasked with serving as mock jurors, Guillen Gonzalez et al (2019) found that introduction of neurobiological evidence was associated with reductions in attributions of legal responsibility but no such reduction in sentencing or terms of confinement. As in the United States, Canadian courts most frequently consider neuroscientific evidence to inform criminal sentencing, where it can have both mitigating and aggravating effects, through a "double-edged sword" effect, whereby such evidence supports diminished culpability while simultaneously increasing perceptions of risk and future dangerousness (Chandler, 2015;Thoumaidou & Berryessa, 2022). Jackson et al (2021) note that trauma-informed sentencing recommendations are rare in Victorian (Australian) courts.…”

“…Other studies have investigated the effect of neurobiological evidence on criminal sentencing recommendations among mock jurors. Thoumaidou and Berryessa (2022) found that 176 university graduates instructed to act as mock jurors in a hypothetical criminal case of aggravated assault on a delivery driver in the context of attempted robbery were more likely to recommend reduced sentences when presented with neurobiological evidence regarding the MAO‐A genetic mutation. They also found that graduates with science degrees were less likely than non‐science graduates to weight perceptions of dangerousness in decisions about punishment and more likely to recommend lenient sentences even when mitigating neurobiological evidence was not introduced.…”

A mixed-methods analysis of judges’ views and decision-making surrounding scientific evidence in criminal sentencing

“…Judges that hold a deterministic view of human behavior may be more likely to opt for less punitive sentencing approaches, while beliefs in the idea that humans are free to determine their actions and lives more broadly (which is may sometimes be intertwined with conservative sociopolitical stances and with religiosity) may be more supportive of retribution as a way to restore justice (26,30). Other characteristics, such as prior education, the extent of scienti c training, and personal experiences with mental disorders, may also in uence the cognitive lters through which decision-makers process scienti c information and punishment decisions (31)(32)(33)(34)(35).…”