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


Autoři: Julianna M. Lynch aff001;  Jonathan D. Lane aff002;  Colleen M. Berryessa aff003;  Joshua Rottman aff001
Působiště autorů: Department of Psychology, Franklin & Marshall College, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, United States of America aff001;  Department of Psychology and Human Development, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, United States of America aff002;  School of Criminal Justice, Center for Law and Justice, Rutgers University, Newark, New Jersey, United States of America aff003
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(10)
Kategorie: Research Article
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0224093

Souhrn

Evidence of perpetrators’ biological or situational circumstances has been increasingly brought to bear in courtrooms. Yet, research findings are mixed as to whether this information influences folk evaluations of perpetrators’ dispositions, and subsequently, evaluations of their deserved punishments. Previous research has not clearly dissociated the effects of information about perpetrators’ genetic endowment versus their environmental circumstances. Additionally, most research has focused exclusively on violations involving extreme physical harm, often using mock capital sentences cases as examples. To address these gaps in the literature, we employed a “switched-at-birth” paradigm to investigate whether positive or negative information about perpetrators’ genetic or environmental backgrounds influence evaluations of a perpetrator’s mental states, character, and deserved punishment. Across three studies, we varied whether the transgression involved direct harm, an impure act that caused no harm, or a case of moral luck. The results indicate that negative genetic and environmental backgrounds influenced participants’ evaluations of perpetrators’ intentions, free will, and character, but did not influence participants’ punishment decisions. Overall, these results replicate and extend existing findings suggesting that perpetrators’ supposed extenuating circumstances may not mitigate the punishment that others assign to them.

Klíčová slova:

Behavior – Genetic predisposition – Heart – Charts – Children – Language – Surveys – Criminal punishment


Zdroje

1. Alicke MD. Culpable causation. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1992;63(3):368–378.

2. Bartels DM. Principled moral sentiment and the flexibility of moral judgment and decision making. Cognition. 2008 Sep;108(2):381–417. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.03.001 18486121

3. Gordon N, Greene E. Nature, nurture, and capital punishment: How evidence of a genetic environment interaction, future dangerousness, and deliberation affect sentencing decisions. Behav Sci Law. 2018 Jan-Feb;36(1):65–83. doi: 10.1002/bsl.2306 28881042

4. Malle BF, Guglielmo S, Monroe AE. A theory of blame. Psychol Inq. 2014 May 20;25(2):147–186.

5. Uhlmann EL, Pizarro DA, Diermeier D. A person-centered approach to moral judgment. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2015 Jan 10;10(1):72–81. doi: 10.1177/1745691614556679 25910382

6. Young L, Tsoi L. When mental states matter, when they don’t, and what that means for morality. Soc Personal Psychol Compass. 2013 Aug 13;7(8):585–604.

7. Cushman F. Crime and punishment: Distinguishing the roles of causal and intentional analyses in moral judgment. Cognition. 2008 Aug;108:353–380. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.03.006 18439575

8. Cushman F. Punishment in humans: From intuitions to institutions. Philos Compass. 2015 Jan 28;10(2):117–133.

9. Berryessa CM. The effects of psychiatric and “biological” labels on lay sentencing and punishment decisions. J Exp Criminol. 2018. Jun;14(2):241–256.

10. Franklin TW. Sentencing outcomes in US district courts: Can offenders’ educational attainment guard against prevalent criminal stereotypes? Crime Delinq. 2017 Feb;63(2):137–165.

11. Jordan K L, Freiburger TL. The effect of race/ethnicity on sentencing: Examining sentence type jail length, and prison length. J Ethn Crim Justice. 2015 Jan 20;13(3):179–196.

12. van Wingerden S, van Wilsem J, Johnson BD. Offender’s personal circumstances and punishment: Toward a more refined model for the explanation of sentencing disparities. Justice Q. 2016 Aug;33(1):100–133.

13. Goodenough OR, Tucker M. Law and cognitive neuroscience. Annu Rev Law Soc Sci. 2010 Dec;6:61–92.

14. Greene J, Cohen J. For the law, neuroscience changes nothing and everything. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2004 Nov 29;359(1451):1775–85. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2004.1546 15590618

15. Farah MJ. Neuroethics: The ethical, legal, and societal impact of neuroscience. Ann Rev of Psychol. 2012 Jan;63:571–591. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100438 19575613

16. Mobbs D, Lau HC, Jones OD, Frith CD. Law, responsibility, and the brain. PLoS Biol. 2007 Apr 17;5(4):e103. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0050103 17439297

17. Pyun J. When neurogenetics hurts: examining the use of neuroscience and genetic evidence in sentencing decisions through implicit bias. Calif Law Rev. 2015 Aug 1;103(4):1019–46.

18. Raine A. From genes to brain to antisocial behavior. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2008 Oct 1;17(5): 323–328.

19. Walker B. When the facts and the law are against you, argue the genes; a pragmatics analysis of genotyping mitigation defenses for psychopathic defendants in death penalty cases. Wash Univ Law Rev. 2013 Jun;90:1779–1818.

20. Wertz J, Caspi A, Belsky DW, Beckley AL, Arseneault L, Barnes JC, Corcoran DL, Hogan S, Houts RM, Morgan N, Odgers CL. Genetics and crime: Integrating new genomic discoveries into psychological research about antisocial behavior. Psychol Sci. 2018 May;29(5):791–803. doi: 10.1177/0956797617744542 29513605

21. Cox J, Clark JC, Edens JF, Smith ST, Magyar MS. Jury panel member evaluations of interpersonal-affective traits of psychopathy predict support for execution in a capital murder trial simulation. Behav Sci Law. 2013 Jul-Aug;31:411–428. doi: 10.1002/bsl.2073 23754472

22. de Brigard F, Mandelbaum E, Ripley D. Responsibility and the brain sciences. Ethical Theory Moral Pract. 2009;12:511–24.

23. Shariff AF, Greene JD, Karremans JC, Luguri JB, Clark CJ, Schooler JW, Baumeister RF, Vohs KD. Free will and punishment: A mechanistic view of human nature reduces retribution. Psychol Sci. 2014 Jun 10;25(8):1563–1570. doi: 10.1177/0956797614534693 24916083

24. Aspinwall LG, Brown TR, Tabery J. The double-edged sword: Does biomechanism increase or decrease judges' sentencing of psychopaths? Science. 2012 Aug 17;337(6096):846–849. doi: 10.1126/science.1219569 22904010

25. Berryessa CM. Judiciary views on criminal behaviour and intention of offenders with high-functioning autism. J Intellect Disabil Offending Behav. 2015 Apr 10;5(2):97–106. doi: 10.1108/JIDOB-02-2014-0002 25866642

26. Dar-Nimrod I, Heine SJ, Cheung BY, Schaller M. Do scientific theories affect men's evaluations of sex crimes? Aggress Behav. 2011 Sep-Oct;37(5):440–449. doi: 10.1002/ab.20401 21678431

27. Haslam N, Kvaale EP. Biogenetic explanations of mental disorder: The mixed blessings model. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2015;24(5):399–404.

28. Jayaratne TE, Gelman SA, Feldbaum M, Sheldon JP, Petty EM, Kardia SL. The perennial debate: Nature, nurture, or choice? Black and white Americans' explanations for individual differences. Rev Gen Psychol. 2009 Mar 1;13(1):24–33. doi: 10.1037/a0014227 20072661

29. Monterosso J, Royzman EB, Schwartz B. Explaining away responsibility: Effects of scientific explanation on perceived culpability. Ethics Behav. 2005 Jan 8;15(2):139–158.

30. Berryessa CM, Cho MK. Ethical, legal, social, and policy implications of behavioral genetics. Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics. 2013 Aug 31;14:515–34. doi: 10.1146/annurev-genom-090711-163743 23452225

31. Berryessa CM. Judicial stereotyping associated with genetic essentialist biases toward mental disorders and potential negative effects on sentencing. Law Soc Rev. 2019 Mar; 53(1):202–238.

32. Heiphetz L, Young LL. Can only one person be right? The development of objectivism and social preferences regarding widely shared and controversial moral beliefs. Cognition. 2017 Oct;167:78–90. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2016.05.014 27260661

33. Robbins P, Litton P. Crime, punishment, and causation: The effect of etiological information on the perception of moral agency. Psychol Public Policy Law. 2018 Feb;24(1):118–127.

34. Scurich N, Appelbaum P. The blunt-edged sword: genetic explanations of misbehavior neither mitigate nor aggravate punishment. J Law Biosci. 2016 Apr 3;3(1):140–57. doi: 10.1093/jlb/lsv053 27239327

35. Heyman GD, Gelman SA. Beliefs about the origins of human psychological traits. Dev Psychol. 2000 Sep;36(5):663–678. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.36.5.663 10976605

36. Hirschfeld LA. Do children have a theory of race? Cognition. 1995 Feb;54:209–252. 7874877

37. Tomasello M. Becoming human: A theory of ontogeny. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 2019.

38. Bezdjian S, Raine A, Tuvblad C, Baker AL. The genetic and environmental covariation among psychopathic personality traits, and reactive and proactive aggression in childhood. Child Dev. 2011 Jul-Aug;82(4):1267–81. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01598.x 21557742

39. Pinker S. The blank slate. New York, NY: Viking; 2002/2016.

40. Cohen J. A power primer. Psychol Bull. 1992 July;112:155–159. doi: 10.1037//0033-2909.112.1.155 19565683

41. Faul F., Erdfelder E., Lang A.-G., & Buchner A. G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. 2007 May;39(2), 175–191. 17695343

42. Berryessa CM. Genetic essentialist biases, stigma, and lack of mitigating impact on punishment decisions. J Law Biosci. 2016 May 4;3(2):359–364.

43. Keller J. In genes we trust: the biological component of psychological essentialism and its relationship to mechanisms of motivated social cognition. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2005 Apr;88(4):686. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.88.4.686 15796668

44. Rangel U, Keller J. Essentialism goes social: Belief in social determinism as a component of psychological essentialism. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2011 Jun;100(6):1056. doi: 10.1037/a0022401 21319911

45. Bastian B, Haslam N. Immigration from the perspective of hosts and immigrants: Roles of psychological essentialism and social identity. Asian J Soc Psychol. 2008 Jun;11(2):127–40.

46. Graham J, Haidt J, Koleva S, Motyl M, Iyer R, Wojcik SP, Ditto PH. Moral foundations theory: The pragmatic validity of moral pluralism. Adv Exp Soc Psychol. 2013;47:55–130.

47. Rottman J, Young L. Specks of dirt and tons of pain: Dosage distinguishes impurity from harm. Psychol Sci. 2019 Aug;30(8):1151–1160. doi: 10.1177/0956797619855382 31242081

48. Young L, Saxe R. When ignorance is no excuse: Different roles for intent across moral domains. Cognition. 2011 Aug;120(2):202–214. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2011.04.005 21601839

49. Chakroff A, Young L. Harmful situations, impure people: An attribution asymmetry across moral domains. Cognition. 2015 Mar;136:30–37. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2014.11.034 25490126

50. Uhlmann EL, Zhu LL. Acts, persons, and intuitions: Person-entered cues and gut reactions to harmless transgressions. Soc Psychol Personal Sci. 2014;5(3):279–285.

51. Nagel T. Moral luck. In: Mortal questions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1979. p. 24–38.

52. Young L, Nichols S, Saxe R. Investigating the neural and cognitive basis of moral luck: It’s not what you do but what you know. Rev Philos Psychol. 2010 Sep;1(3):333–349. doi: 10.1007/s13164-010-0027-y 22558062

53. Young L, Cushman F, Hauser M, Saxe R. The neural basis of the interaction between theory of mind and moral judgment. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 May 15;104(20):8235–40. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0701408104 17485679

54. Siegel JZ, Crockett MJ, Dolan RJ. Inferences about moral character moderate the impact of consequences on blame and praise. Cognition. 2017 Oct;167:201–211. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2017.05.004 28527671

55. Tannenbaum D, Uhlmann EL, Diermeier D. Moral signals, public outrage, and immaterial harms. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2011 Nov;47(6):1249–1254.

56. Appelbaum PS, Scurich N. Impact of behavioral genetic evidence on the adjudication of criminal behavior. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2014;42(1):91. 24618524

57. Cheung BY, Heine SJ. The double-edged sword of genetic accounts of criminality: Causal attributions from genetic ascriptions affect legal decision making. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2015 Dec;41(12):1723–1738. doi: 10.1177/0146167215610520 26498975

58. Gromet DM, Darley JM. Retributive and restorative justice: Importance of crime severity and shared identity in people’s justice responses. Aust J Psychol. 2009 May;61(1):50–7.

59. Myers C. Encouraging allocution at capital sentencing: A proposal for use immunity. Columbia Law Rev. 1997;97:787–818.


Článek vyšel v časopise

PLOS One


2019 Číslo 10