136822-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
Scientists, lawyers, and bioethicists have pondered the impact of scientifically deterministic evidence on a judge or jury when deciding the sentence of a criminal. Though the impact may be one that relieves the amount of personal guilt on the part

Scientists, lawyers, and bioethicists have pondered the impact of scientifically deterministic evidence on a judge or jury when deciding the sentence of a criminal. Though the impact may be one that relieves the amount of personal guilt on the part of the criminal, this evidence may also be the very reason that a judge or jury punishes more strongly, suggesting that this type of evidence may be a double-edged sword. 118 participants were shown three films of fictional sentencing hearings. All three films introduced scientifically deterministic evidence, and participants were asked to recommend a prison sentence. Each hearing portrayed a different criminal with different neurological conditions, a different crime, and a different extent of argumentation during closing arguments about the scientifically deterministic evidence. Though the argumentation from the prosecution and the defense did not affect sentencing, the interaction of type of crime and neurological condition did.
861.07 KB application/pdf

Download restricted. Please sign in.
Restrictions Statement

Barrett Honors College theses and creative projects are restricted to ASU community members.

Details

Title
  • Measuring the Double-Edged Sword: Does Scientifically Deterministic Evidence Protect or Punish Criminals?
Contributors
Date Created
2014-05
Resource Type
  • Text
  • Machine-readable links