How information about perpetrators' nature and nurture influences assessments of their character, mental states, and deserved punishment

The use of neurobiological evidence in sentencing mitigation

Neurobiological evidence has grown increasingly relevant in U.S. criminal proceedings, particularly during sentencing. Neuroimaging, such as functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Positron Emission Tomography scans, may be introduced by defense counsel to demonstrate brain abnormalities to argue for more lenient sentencing. This practice is common for penalty mitigation in cases eligible for capital punishment. This article reviews the history of the use of neuroscience in criminal cases from the early 20th Century to present, noting pertinent legal and ethical considerations for the use of such evidence. The authors review important empirical research conducted in recent years regarding the use of neurobiological evidence in legal proceedings (such as mock-juror studies) and guidance from the federal sentencing guidelines and the American Bar Association. The discussion also notes relevant case law in which neuroimaging, behavioral genetics, or other neurobiological data were introduced in criminal proceedings, particularly precedent-setting U.S. Supreme Court cases.

Genetic essentialist beliefs about criminality predict harshness of recommended punishment

Genetic essentialism is a set of beliefs holding that certain categories have a heritable, intrinsic, and biological basis. The current studies explore people's genetic essentialist beliefs about criminality, how such essentialism relates to beliefs about appropriate punishment, and the kinds of judgments and motivations that underlie these associations. Study 1 validated a novel task, in which respondents estimated how possible it would be for a child to inherit criminal behavior from a sperm donor with whom they had no contact. Studies 2-4 used this task to address how genetic essentialist beliefs related to the harmfulness of a crime and the harshness of recommended punishment. Results indicated a tendency to essentialize both low- and high-harm crimes, though genetic essentialism was higher for more harmful crimes. Moreover, genetic essentialist beliefs predicted recommendations for harsher punishments, with retributive and protective motivations, as well as perceptions of recidivism risk, partially mediating this association. Further, Studies 3 and 4 found that genetic essentialism positively predicted support for harsh punishments such as the death penalty, as well as support for directing financial resources more toward law enforcement and less toward social support. Lay theories about criminality may have profound implications for decisions about appropriate punishment for wrongdoers, as well as broader policy decisions about crime, punishment, and resource allocation. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).