Neuroscientific, Neuropsychological, and Psychological Evidence Comparably Impact Legal Decision Making: Implications for Experts and Legal Practitioners

Laduke, Casey; Locklair, Benjamin; Heilbrun, Kirk

doi:10.1080/24732850.2018.1439142

Cited by 8 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Results showed no effects of the expert testimony on verdict or sentence length. Similarly, LaDuke et al (2018; described above and in Table 1) found no effect of the of the combined expert+neuroimage condition on sentence length for a defendant convicted of burglary and aggravated assault. These null findings held for both the MRI and the fMRI conditions.…”

Section: Does Neuroscientific Expert Testimony Accompanied By Neuroimmentioning

confidence: 81%

“…In the control condition, mock jurors were only presented with the facts of the case; they did not see any expert testimony. LaDuke et al (2018) found no difference in sentences between conditions, and thus no mitigating effect of neuroscientific evidence. Finally, Marshall, Lilienfeld, Mayberg, and Clark (2017) compared neuroscientific expert testimony with a psychiatric expert testimony in a murder case (see Table 1 for experiment details).…”

Section: Does Neuroscientific Expert Testimony Affect Juror Decisions?mentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Importantly, across studies, neuroscientific testimony does not appear to have a consistently mitigating effect on guilty/not guilty decisions (Mowle et al, 2016; Schweitzer et al, 2011), or on sentencing (LaDuke et al, 2018; Marshall et al, 2017; Mowle et al, 2016; Schweitzer et al, 2011). Notably, this was the case even for defendants who posed a high risk of future dangerousness (LaDuke et al, 2018) and those with diagnoses of mental illness (Marshall et al, 2017; Mowle et al, 2016). Indeed, only a single study (Allen et al, 2019) found a mitigating effect of neuroscientific testimony on prison sentences.…”

Section: Does Neuroscientific Expert Testimony Affect Juror Decisions?mentioning

confidence: 98%

“…However, this format is actually unrepresentative of the typical trial experience, which generally involves in-person testimony. LaDuke, Locklair, and Heilbrun (2018) attempted to mimic juror experience by presenting mock jurors with video expert testimony. In their study, the defendant had been found guilty of burglary and aggravated assault and was now awaiting sentencing.…”

Section: Does Neuroscientific Expert Testimony Affect Juror Decisions?mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Neuroscientific evidence in the courtroom: a review

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The use of neuroscience in the courtroom can be traced back to the early twentieth century. However, the use of neuroscientific evidence in criminal proceedings has increased significantly over the last two decades. This rapid increase has raised questions, among the media as well as the legal and scientific communities, regarding the effects that such evidence could have on legal decision makers. In this article, we first outline the history of neuroscientific evidence in courtrooms and then we provide a review of recent research investigating the effects of neuroscientific evidence on decision-making broadly, and on legal decisions specifically. In the latter case, we review studies that measure the effect of neuroscientific evidence (both imaging and nonimaging) on verdicts, sentencing recommendations, and beliefs of mock jurors and judges presented with a criminal case. Overall, the reviewed studies suggest mitigating effects of neuroscientific evidence on some legal decisions (e.g., the death penalty). Furthermore, factors such as mental disorder diagnoses and perceived dangerousness might moderate the mitigating effect of such evidence. Importantly, neuroscientific evidence that includes images of the brain does not appear to have an especially persuasive effect (compared with other neuroscientific evidence that does not include an image). Future directions for research are discussed, with a specific call for studies that vary defendant characteristics, the nature of the crime, and a juror's perception of the defendant, in order to better understand the roles of moderating factors and cognitive mediators of persuasion.

show abstract

Section: Does Neuroscientific Expert Testimony Accompanied By Neuroimmentioning

confidence: 81%

Section: Does Neuroscientific Expert Testimony Affect Juror Decisions?mentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Does Neuroscientific Expert Testimony Affect Juror Decisions?mentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Does Neuroscientific Expert Testimony Affect Juror Decisions?mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Neuroscientific evidence in the courtroom: a review

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Yet other mock trial studies have reported null effects of biological explanations. For example, neurobiological evidence of psychopathic or anti-social tendencies in criminal offenders had no effect on participant’s recommended prison sentence lengths compared to psychological or behavioral evidence [22, 23]. Similarly, Blakey and Kremsmayer [24] found that describing a case of aggravated assault as stemming from the offender’s impaired brain activity as opposed to his lower self-control had no significant impact on the length of prison sentence recommended for the crime.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reconciling the opposing effects of neurobiological evidence on criminal sentencing judgments

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Forensic mental health expert testimony and judicial decision-making: A systematic literature review

Kunst

Keijser

2020

Aggression and Violent Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Neuroscientific, Neuropsychological, and Psychological Evidence Comparably Impact Legal Decision Making: Implications for Experts and Legal Practitioners

Cited by 8 publications

References 33 publications

Neuroscientific evidence in the courtroom: a review

Neuroscientific evidence in the courtroom: a review

Reconciling the opposing effects of neurobiological evidence on criminal sentencing judgments

Forensic mental health expert testimony and judicial decision-making: A systematic literature review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About