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

Abstract

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.

Neuroscience explanations really do satisfy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the seductive allure of neuroscience

“…The initial search found 32 of the 35 papers assessed for eligibility. The second search yielded three newer publications for consideration (Bulut et al, 2022; Perricone et al, 2022; Phalen et al, 2021). Initial screening was conducted by one author (PJM).…”

“…First, it was found that sentencing judgments in line with the DES hypothesis were not based on consequences like predicted treatability or effects on public safety, but rather deontological concerns about the ethics of punishing those less blameworthy or responsible, and about duty to provide treatment to those with mental illness (Allen et al, 2019). Second, researchers added neuroscientific evidence to a criminal case in a pretest-posttest design, and also varied stated reasons for incarceration (Perricone et al, 2022). There was no main effect of neuroscience on sentence length, as several others have found, but an interaction showing that those who read that the reason for incarceration is for public safety or to take time to rehabilitate them increased their recommended sentences, while sentences were decreased when the reason for a longer sentence was retribution.…”

The use of neurobiological evidence in sentencing mitigation

“…Regarding the potentially conflicting effects of neurobiological evidence on mock juror decision making in criminal cases, Perricone et al (2022) found that differences were largely due to interpretations of the purpose of punishment.…”

“…Regarding the potentially conflicting effects of neurobiological evidence on mock juror decision making in criminal cases, Perricone et al. (2022) found that differences were largely due to interpretations of the purpose of punishment. When instructed to be mindful of retribution as the rationale for imprisonment, 784 mock jurors tended to recommend lessened sentences in response to neuroscientific evidence; when the rationale for imprisonment was explained as the protection of the public, respondents recommended harsher sentences in response to the same evidence.…”

“…When instructed to be mindful of retribution as the rationale for imprisonment, 784 mock jurors tended to recommend lessened sentences in response to neuroscientific evidence; when the rationale for imprisonment was explained as the protection of the public, respondents recommended harsher sentences in response to the same evidence. Perricone and colleagues summarize their findings as follows: “the impact of neuroscientific evidence is not monolithic, but can lead to either mitigated or aggravated sentences by interacting with penal philosophy” (Perricone et al., 2022, p. 1).…”