Neurogenetic evidence in the courtroom: a randomised controlled trial with German judges

Abstract

Our data, thus, demonstrate the socially contingent nature of legal responses to neurogenetic evidence in criminal cases.

Legal responses to neuroscience

“…We thus repeated the study by Aspinwall and colleagues 18 in the German legal sys tem and recruited 372 German judges to respond to a transla tion of the same vignette. 21 In the German legal system, pro found differences in responses occurred. First, the evidence concerning psychopathy was seen as mitigating overall.…”

“…The study by Aspinwall and colleagues 18 and our study 21 investigated the influence of a specific construct (psycho pathy) and specific neurogenetic evidence on sentencing. We do not know if these findings can be translated to other dis orders (e.g., psychosis, other personality or paraphilic disor ders) or to other biological evidence (e.g., fMRI or quantitative EEG).…”

“…25 We argued that introduction of neuro science evidence emphasizes that a psychiatric disorder is a brain disorder and, thus, the need for (involuntary) treat ment seems to be considered greater. 21 Such a neurobiological basis may reduce the legal responsibility, but nevertheless in crease the likelihood for indeterminate involuntary commit ment, especially for those who have disorders with limited treatment options or poor prognosis (e.g., psychopathy or paraphilic disorders). The study by Aspinwall and colleagues 18 and our study 21 demonstrate how neuroscience evidence re ceives different responses in 2 legal systems.…”

“…21 Such a neurobiological basis may reduce the legal responsibility, but nevertheless in crease the likelihood for indeterminate involuntary commit ment, especially for those who have disorders with limited treatment options or poor prognosis (e.g., psychopathy or paraphilic disorders). The study by Aspinwall and colleagues 18 and our study 21 demonstrate how neuroscience evidence re ceives different responses in 2 legal systems. Although the evi dence was formally mitigating in both systems, it led to de creased detention time in the United States, whereas it possibly led to increased detention time in Germany.…”

“…They presented US state trial judges with a hypo thetical criminal case that was largely based on the case of Mobley v. The State, 19,20 which was one of the most famous US criminal cases of the last decades because it was the first in which MAOA could have played a role. 21 The hypothetical case described a psychopath convicted of aggravated battery because he callously hit a store manager with a gun during a robbery attempt. Later, the psychopath bragged about his of fense to fellow detainees.…”