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

Extraneous neuroscience information improves ratings of scientific explanations, and affects mock juror decisions in many studies, but others have yielded little to no effect. To establish the magnitude of this effect, we conducted a random-effects meta-analysis using 60 experiments from 28 publications. We found a mild but highly significant effect, with substantial heterogeneity. Planned subgroup analyses revealed that within-subjects studies, where people can compare the same material with and without neuroscience, and those using text, have stronger effects than between-subjects designs, and studies using brain image stimuli. We serendipitously found that effect sizes were stronger on outcomes of evaluating satisfaction or metacomprehension, compared with jury verdicts or assessments of convincingness. In conclusion, there is more than one type of neuroscience explanations effect. Irrelevant neuroscience does have a seductive allure, especially on self-appraised satisfaction and understanding, and when presented as text.

A study of auxiliary factors for judges in sentencing dangerous driving offenses - the mediating role of favorable and unfavorable factors

This paper investigates the ancillary factors judges consider when sentencing dangerous driving offenses. These factors are divided into favorable (i.e., "Confess" [CF], and "Actively compensate and obtain forgiveness from victims" [AC]) and unfavorable categories (i.e., "Mainly or solely responsible for the accident" [MSR], and "Post-accident behavior" [BAA]). Results indicate that both types of factors mediate the relationship between "Blood Alcohol Concentration" (BAC) and the sentencing outcome: favorable factors have a significant negative correlation with sentences, while unfavorable ones show a positive correlation. The mediation effect ratios are 13.8% and 19.1% respectively, with no significant differences between their impacts on judges' sentencing decisions.

An empirical study of the use of neuroscience in sentencing in New South Wales, Australia

While neuroscience has been used in Australian courts for the past 40 years, no systematic empirical study has been conducted into how neuroscientific evidence is used in courts. This study provides a systematic review on how neuroscientific evidence is considered in sentencing decisions of New South Wales criminal courts. A comprehensive and systematic search was conducted on three databases. From this search, 331 relevant sentencing decisions before 2016 that discussed neuroscientific evidence were examined. The findings of this study suggest that neuroscientific evidence appeared to contribute to sentencing decisions in less than half of the cases examined; and in the majority of these, it supported a more lenient sentence.

Homelessness and predictors of criminal reoffending: A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

There are not many longitudinal studies examining people experiencing homelessness and interacting with the criminal justice system over time.

AIMS

To describe the type of criminal offences committed, court outcomes, identify probable predictors of reoffending, and estimate the criminal justice costs in a cohort of homeless hostel clinic attendees.

METHOD

A retrospective cohort study of 1646 people attending a homeless clinic who had had contact with the criminal justice system (CJS) in New South Wales (NSW), Australia, using linked clinic, criminal offence, health and mortality data from 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2021. Initial comparisons were made with the 852 clinic attendees without CJS contact in the period. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify predictors of recidivism.

RESULTS

There were 16,840 offending episodes, giving an offence rate of 87.8 per 100 person-years (95%CI: 86.5-89.1). The most common index offences were acts intended to cause injury (22%), illicit drug (17%) and theft-related (12%) offences. Most people (83%) were found guilty of the index offence and received a fine (37%) or community-based sentence (29%). Total court finalisation costs were AUD $11.3 million. Three-quarters of those convicted reoffended within 24 months. Offenders were more likely to be younger, have a diagnosis of personality disorder (AOR: 1.31; 95% CI: 1.04-1.67), a substance use disorder (AOR: 1.60; 95% CI 1.14-2.23) and/or to have a previous charge dismissed on mental health grounds (AOR: 1.79; 95% CI: 1.31-2.46). Within the offending cohort, reoffenders had almost twice the odds of having theft-related offences as their principal index offence (AOR: 1.85; 95% CI: 1.29-2.66).

CONCLUSIONS

This longitudinal study finding of not only a high rate of criminal justice contact, but also a high rate of recidivism among people who have been homeless, lends support to a need for strategies both to address the root causes of homelessness and to provide a comprehensive systems-based response to reduce recidivism, that includes secure housing as well as mental health and substance use treatment programmes for homeless offenders.

Trauma-Informed Sentencing: How South Australian Sentencing Judges Use Information About defendants' Child Sexual Abuse Victimization and Subsequent Trauma

This article explores how South Australian judges use information about child sexual abuse (CSA) victimization history and its potentially traumatic impact, when sentencing adult defendants. Past research indicates that sentencing outcomes may significantly improve if judicial officers are "trauma-informed." "Trauma" is the distressing impact of adversity on an individual's social and emotional well-being. Drawing from a sample of 33 sentencing remarks within which judicial officers have identified defendants with histories of CSA, this article applies a trauma-informed practice framework to explore the degree to which the sentencing of these defendants may be trauma-informed. Finally, the paper discusses potential initiatives to better achieve community safety when sentencing people with trauma from CSA. The findings are highly transferable, given the parallels in the sentencing calculus across countries that have a Westminster system of law.

The dispositional need for cognitive closure indirectly predicts mock jurors' sentencing decisions through right-wing authoritarianism

One reason people are motivated to hold right-wing authoritarian beliefs is the need to manage uncertainty. Right-wing authoritarianism provides a stable source of black-and-white 'answers' about the social world - obey established authorities and norms and show hostility to deviants. Right-wing authoritarianism, in turn, is positively associated with more punitive attitudes and judgements. The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between mock capital jurors' need for cognitive closure and sentencing decisions through right-wing authoritarianism. Four-hundred and fifty-one jury-eligible adults read a hypothetical capital case, weighed aggravating and mitigating evidence and chose a sentence. They also responded to items measuring right-wing authoritarianism and the need for cognitive closure. The need for cognitive closure was indirectly related to choosing a death sentence through right-wing authoritarianism and the weighing of aggravators and mitigators. Theoretical and practical implications, as well as directions for future studies, are discussed.

Ben Crewe on the Bench? Bringing the Dimensional Pains of Punishment into the Courtroom

Penal subjectivists argue that the severity of punishment ought to be measured in terms of penal subjects' actual experiences, rather than that intended by sentencing authorities. One challenge that subjectivists must confront, however, is that it is difficult to meaningfully compare the subjective experiences of different individuals, in a way that is sufficiently equitable and consistent to satisfy the requirements of just sentencing. This paper considers the prospects and pitfalls of Ben Crewe's dimensional approach to the pains of imprisonment as a means of overcoming this challenge during sentencing. Crewe's ground-breaking work takes the "deprivations and frustrations" of everyday prison life associated with Gresham Sykes, and subjects them to four spatial metaphors that help to trace differences between penal experiences: depth; weight; tightness; and breadth. The applicability of this approach to sentencing decision-making is considered, and implications are drawn for sentencing research agendas.

Experiences of Sentencing and the Pains of Punishment: Prisoners' Perspectives

Although sentencing is often described as a human process, the subjective experiences of those subject to sentencing are seldom discussed or highlighted as an important source of guidance for how sentencing might be made more fair, consistent, or proportionate. Tyler's work on the links between experiences of procedural justice and perceptions of legitimacy in the criminal justice system show that how people are treated during sentencing and/or when serving their sentence matters in that it impacts their long-term compliance with the law. However, we suggest here that it may not only be long-term compliance that is impacted; subjective experiences of imprisonment, in terms of the pains of imprisonment, may also be exacerbated for those whose experiences of the sentencing process are predominantly negative. This article draws on 37 in-depth interviews with Irish prisoners that explored their subjective experiences of their own sentencing in court and how this related to their subjective experiences of their prison sentences. Those who felt they had received unreasonably harsh or unfair sentences, or who felt they were effectively excluded from the sentencing process, were more likely to experience specific pains and increased salience of punishment. The article concludes by arguing that these findings have a role to play in educating sentencers about how their treatment of convicted persons during sentencing can have meaningful, long-term consequences on the subjective experiences of those serving prison sentences.

Addressing the challenges of remorse in the criminal justice system

Remorse in offenders appears in a number of criminal justice domains. It is a mitigating factor in sentencing, influences parole decision making, may be influential in offender rehabilitation, and may be valued in forensic mental health. However, evaluation of remorse presents challenges in relation to evidence for remorse and expectations about its performance. Nevertheless, remorse is embedded deeply in criminal justice. The consideration of remorse in relation to emotions of shame, guilt and regret may offer an approach for evaluating remorse in sentencing and for addressing remorse in offender rehabilitation. This approach to understanding and working with remorse requires further elaboration, development and testing.

Does Gender Affect Judges' Perceptions of Sexual Assault Cases?

There is growing recognition that females engage in harmful sexual behaviour that is similar in severity and type to males. Existing research, however, suggests that there is a bias towards leniency in judicial systems for female sexual offenders (FSOs) in comparison to male sexual offenders (MSOs). Specifically, FSOs receive shorter sentences than do MSOs and are less likely to be sentenced to prison. The majority of research examining disparity in sentence outcomes for FSOs have been analysed through a quantitative lens. Qualitative methodology is also needed to understand any subjective differences in the way that judges perceive case-relevant factors and whether these perceptions differ as a function of the offender's gender. The present study is a qualitative study that examined judges' perceptions and descriptions of FSO compared to MSO in 10 matched cases of sexual offending. The study found that although there were many similarities in how judges perceived FSO compared to MSO, there were also unique differences that could explain more lenient sentences for FSOs (i.e. the vulnerability, poor mental health and adverse backgrounds of FSOs). Other unique differences found were that judges' perception of FSOs behaviour was described as depraved and cruel, whereas MSOs similar behaviour was not described in such an emotive way. The present study provides additional insight into the reasons for a bias towards leniency for FSOs. In particular, it points towards judicial focus on particular personal circumstances that are seen as relevant in sentencing FSOs but not for MSOs.

A jury of scientists: Formal education in biobehavioral sciences reduces the odds of punitive criminal sentencing

This study examines how formal education in biological and behavioral sciences may impact punishment intuitions (views on criminal sentencing, free will, responsibility, and dangerousness) in cases involving neurobiological evidence. In a survey experiment, we compared intuitions between biobehavioral science and non-science university graduates by presenting them with a baseline case without a neurobiological explanation for offending followed by one of two cases with a neurobiological explanation (described as either innate or acquired biological influences to offending). An ordinal logistic regression indicated that both science and non-science graduates selected significantly more severe punishments for the baseline case as compared to when an innate neurobiological explanation for offending was provided. However, across all cases, science graduates selected significantly less severe sentences than non-science graduates, and only science graduates' decisions were mediated by free will and responsibility attributions. Findings are discussed in relation to scientific understandings of behavior, the impact of science education on attitudes towards punishment, and potential criminal-legal implications.

Personality disorders and forensic assessments: The benefits of ICD-11

A recent landmark case in the Australian state of Victoria clarified the ways in which personality disorders may be taken into account when the courts are sentencing convicted offenders. The ruling especially emphasised: the need for evidence to be 'cogent'; the need to determine 'severity' of the personality disorder; the need to consider whether there is a 'connection to the offending'; the need for caution when diagnoses are based solely on behaviour; and the need to consider rehabilitative prospects and community protection. The ruling has significant implications for how forensic experts in all jurisdictions might most effectively assist the courts with the task of sentencing offenders with personality disorders. In this paper we argue that the approach to diagnosis taken in the newly published ICD-11 manual, that eschews 'categories' of personality disorder, in favour of a dimensional model supported by trait theory, is of much greater utility to forensic mental health experts striving to address these issues, compared to traditional 'categorical' approaches.

Parkinson's Disease and the Criminal Justice System

Parkinson's disease is the world's second most common neurodegenerative disorder, and its incidence is growing. This editorial reviews the current state of knowledge about Parkinson's disease, its causes, its treatment and the symptomatology that is relevant to the administration of criminal justice. It identifies that, in conjunction with comorbidities, the disease can result in unfitness to stand trial, soundly based pleas of insanity/mental impairment and, in particular, can have a significant effect on the sentencing of offenders. It argues that with the ageing of the modern jail population, the incidence of Parkinson's disease provides a strong justification for the creation of alternative health care approaches that can provide suitable custodial services for those with conditions such as Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease and a variety of forms of dementia.

Sanctions for Intimate Partner Sexual Violence: Is the Law on the Books the Law in Action?

Intimate partner sexual violence (IPSV) is common, yet in many jurisdictions the law still does not adequately recognize it. In those jurisdictions that have formally criminalized IPSV, little is known about the extent to which IPSV-related law on the books is implemented in practice. Especially scarce is systematic quantitative evidence on the processing of IPSV cases by the justice system. We investigate unique case-level court data on the processing and sanctioning of violent sex crime cases in Belgium, a jurisdiction where the law adequately criminalizes IPSV, but where criminal judges are afforded broad sentencing discretion. Our data allow us to observe both the conviction and the sentencing decision. Consequently, we are able to address the endogenous sample selection concerns that arise in the assessment of IPSV-related sentencing disparities by estimating a full-fledged sample selection model. Upon inclusion of a broad range of defendant, victim, and other case controls, we show that defendants who are the victims' spouses or partners receive statistically significantly shorter prison sentences than defendants who are unrelated to the victims, in the sense that they are neither the victims' current or former spouses nor family. The documented extralegal disparity is quantitatively noteworthy and survives a series of robustness checks as well as alternative model specifications. Our analysis thus lends empirical credibility to the perspective that while national legislatures have often been slow to address IPSV, the justice systems may be even slower at internalizing the corresponding law. Our evidence-based insight into de facto legal responses to IPSV is of direct relevance to many jurisdictions globally.

At the heart of sentencing: exploring whether more compassionate delivery of sentencing remarks increases public concern for people who offend

Compassion has the capacity to change how we think and feel about people who offend, enabling us to understand individual and systemic causes of criminality and whether, and in what circumstances, desistance is possible. Across two experiments, our research examined whether a more compassionate sentencing delivery, firstly, in written sentencing remarks and, secondly, in videoed sentencing remarks, stimulated more concern for sentenced offenders amongst members of the Australian public. Our results suggest that it is possible to alter the features of a written or orally-delivered sentence, so that it is recognisably more compassionate. Further, engagement with compassion-enhanced sentencing remarks altered criminal justice spending preferences, reducing the proportion of the criminal justice budget that the public believed should be spent on imprisonment and increasing that to be spent on rehabilitation.

Correctional "Free Lunch"? Cost Neglect Increases Punishment in Prosecutors

Prosecutors can influence judges’ sentencing decisions by the sentencing recommendations they make—but prosecutors are insulated from the costs of those sentences, which critics have described as a correctional “free lunch.” In a nationally distributed survey experiment, we show that when a sample of (n=178) professional prosecutors were insulated from sentencing cost information, their prison sentence recommendations were nearly one-third lengthier than sentences rendered following exposure to direct cost information. Exposure to a fiscally equivalent benefit of incarceration did not impact sentencing recommendations, as predicted. This pattern suggests that prosecutors implicitly value incorporating sentencing costs but selectively neglect them unless they are made explicit. These findings highlight a likely but previously unrecognized contributor to mass incarceration and identify a potential way to remediate it.

The Depravity Standard for Violent Crimes

In violent crime cases, aggravating factors in United States criminal codes, such as "heinous," "atrocious," or "depraved," are used to distinguish elements of the crime warranting more severe sentencing. These aggravating terms are vaguely defined and applied arbitrarily in violent cases. This paper details the development of a 25 item Depravity Standard to operationalize an evidence-based approach to distinguishing the worst of violent crimes. The items were applied to 393 detailed case files drawn from several American jurisdictions to develop and refine the item definitions, determine interrater reliability, and mine for the frequency of each item's occurrence. This information was combined with 1,590 participant responses ranking the relative depravity of each item to develop a straightforward scoring system for measuring depravity in violent cases. The Depravity Standard guide can seamlessly be applied to identify the worst violent crimes, and provide support for those cases that may deserve leniency or early-release.

Sentencing and mental disorder: the evolution of the Verdins Principles, strategic interdisciplinary advocacy and evidence-based reform

In DPP v O'Neill, the Victorian Court of Appeal excluded personality disorders from the scope of the sentencing principles that apply to offenders with mental health problems around Australia (the 'Verdins principles'). This decision was based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of personality disorders and had the potential to create serious injustice for many marginalised people. To redress this problem, the authors engaged in a unique process of strategic advocacy, which resulted in the Victorian Court of Appeal overturning O'Neill in the recent case of Brown v The Queen. This article examines the evolution of the Verdins principles, the problems that arose in O'Neill, the collaborative strategy used to address those problems and the successful outcome of that interdisciplinary strategy.

Attitudes toward the Punishment of Juvenile and Adult Sexual Offenders in Canada: The Roles of Sentencing Goals and Criminal Justice Motivations

There has long been concern among academics and those in criminal justice professions regarding the public's seemingly enthusiastic support for punitive responses to sexual offenders, such as long sentences, residency restrictions, registration, and community notification. Yet there has been little research to date on what motives may be driving the endorsement of these policies, particularly registration. Our understanding is further muddled by conflicting research on punitive attitudes in general, with some suggesting that retributive motives are behind such attitudes while others report the efficacy of utilitarian motives. Using a sample of 376 university students, the current study sought to determine whether retributive, utilitarian, or other motives drove support for longer sentences and registration for juvenile and adult sexual offenders. Results indicated that motives largely differed between the two sanctions as well as the two age groups of offenders. Both retributive and utilitarian motives contributed to support for policies, suggesting that these motives work in congruence with one another. This has clear implications for policy discussions, as advocates for criminal justice reform should be appealing to both motives to change societal attitudes.

Not a "Get Out of Jail Free Card": Comparing the Legal Supervision of Persons Found Not Criminally Responsible on Account of Mental Disorder and Convicted Offenders

BACKGROUND

The public often perceives the insanity defense as a "get out of jail free card". Conversely, several studies demonstrate the substantial control imposed upon these defendants. This study compares Review Boards decisions regarding people found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) to criminal courts decisions regarding convicted offenders for similar offenses in Canada.

METHOD

Detention, using logistic regression, and duration under detention and supervision, using Cox regression, were compared between a cohort of 1794 individuals found NCRMD in three Canadian provinces (Quebec, Ontario, and British Columbia) between 2000 and 2005 followed until 2008 from the National Trajectory Project and a national sample of 3,20,919 Canadians convicted of criminal offense from Statistics Canada's Criminal Court Survey.

RESULTS

Individuals found NCRMD are 3.8 times (95% CI 3.4-4.3) more likely to be detained than convicted offenders as well as 4.8 times (95% CI 4.5-5.3) and 2.9 times (95% CI 2.6-3.1) less likely to be released from detention and supervision, respectively. One year after the verdict, 73% of the NCRMD accused were still under legal supervision and 42% were still in detention, whereas these proportions were, respectively, 41 and 1% for their convicted counterparts. Interaction effects show that sex, age, jurisdiction, number of offenses, and severity of crimes committed have a differential impact on decisions applied to NCRMD accused compared to convicted persons.

CONCLUSION

Contrary to popular perceptions, the insanity defense is not a loophole. Differences as to factors influencing the trajectories of the two samples confirm that Review Boards are able to distance their practices from the criminal courts and can set aside, at least in part, the principles of proportionality and punitiveness governing the traditional sentencing practices.

Personality Disorder and Moral Culpability: Brown v The Queen

The influential Victorian appellate judgment of R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102 provided a sentencing framework for "impaired mental functioning" not only in Victoria but in other Australian jurisdictions. Following the judgment of Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic) v O'Neill (2015) 47 VR 395; [2015] VSCA 325, it appeared that personality disorders were not considered within the scope of the Verdins principles. In Brown v The Queen [2020] VSCA 212, the decision of the Victorian Court of Appeal broadened the potential for impaired mental functioning to include personality disorders as relevant to moral culpability. However, it is also noted that there are several limits on this.

What does the public think about sex offender registers? Findings from a national Australian study

This article presents data from questions about sex offender registration orders in a large national survey on Australian public opinion about adult sex offenders. It outlines the legislative frameworks that govern these registers in Australia and discusses the use of public registers, the research on the effectiveness of sex offender registers, and Australian attitudes to such registers. Our surveys of three cohorts of members of the Australian public reveal strong public support for sex offender registers, especially for cases involving child victims. However, there was also support for judicial discretion in the imposition of orders and reduced support for automatic registration where a non-custodial sentence is imposed. The Australian Government has recently announced the establishment of a national public sex offender register, but our findings show limited support for this approach. The implications for policy and practice are considered.

Valid or voodoo? A qualitative study of attorney perceptions of risk assessment in sentencing and plea bargaining

Prior research largely has explored judicial perceptions of risk assessment in sentencing. Little is known about how other court actors, specifically, prosecutors and defense attorneys, perceive risk assessments in the sentencing process. Here, we report a qualitative study on the use of risk assessment by prosecutors and defense attorneys in Virginia. A prior survey (n = 70) pointed to a statistically significant difference in how prosecutors and defense attorneys view the role of recidivism risk in sentencing. On the basis of the results of this quantitative study, we collected follow-up qualitative data via interview (n = 30) to explain this unexpected difference. Analysis confirmed the survey findings that prosecutors and defense attorneys differ in their perceptions of risk assessment in sentencing. Results suggest that court actor perceptions vary as a function of professional role in the service of the identified client (the community or the defendant) and their interests. Although perceptions diverged on utility risk assessment in sentencing, both prosecutors and defense attorneys were outspoken in their skepticism of the Nonviolent Risk Assessment instrument that is used to predict recidivism risk in Virginia. This latter finding identifies obstacles that may emerge as jurisdictions adopt a risk-based approach to sentencing. We conclude with recommendations for addressing these barriers that may provide useful guidance on the implementation process.

COVID-19: Criminal Law, Public Assemblies and Human Rights Litigation

Australia's criminal law was affected by the COVID-19 pandemic from the outset and then progressively as statutory measures and judicial rulings on matters such as bail entitlements, judge-alone trials, sentences and applications for demonstrations and public assemblies were made by courts. This column identifies some of the major decisions made during the period of the lockdown measures between March and July 2020, and reviews significant New South Wales judgments in relation to the lawfulness of mass gatherings during the period of lockdown as expert assessments of risks of community transmission of the virus waxed and waned. It explores the importation into Australia's criminal law of public health principles for the protection of the community, and its compatibility with traditional principles of criminal justice.

Obsessive compulsive disorder and obsessive compulsive personality disorder and the criminal law

Obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) is a mental illness that has penetrated public consciousness. However, the extent to which OCD and obsessive compulsive personality disorder (OCPD) can constitute debilitating conditions that adversely affect most aspects of a person's functioning and quality of life are not so well known, including as to how they can impair the capacity to give reasoned consideration to conduct options and the consequences of choices. Little scholarship exists about the legal repercussions of OCD and OCPD and, in particular, their potential relevance for both assessments of criminal responsibility and criminal culpability. This article commences to redress that deficit, outlining contemporary clinical knowledge about the disorders that is relevant to the legal context and identifying important judgments by courts in the United Kingdom, Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and India which have dealt with the potential impact of OCD and OCPD, in particular for decisions at the sentencing phase of criminal proceedings. It calls for better awareness of OCD and OCPD on the part of forensic mental health practitioners, criminal law practitioners and members of the judiciary.

Offenders convicted of child sexual exploitation material offences: characteristics of offenders and an exploration of judicial censure

Research on the discernments of child sexual exploitation material (CSEM), particularly delivered by judicial officers, is limited. Sentencing remarks can disseminate formal messages about the offender's character while censuring crime. This study aimed to: obtain a deeper understanding on the characteristics of CSEM offenders and explore the censure sentencing judiciary impart. An exploratory content analysis conducted on sentencing remarks of 29 offenders across a 10-year period in Australia found all offenders were male, mostly middle-aged, with diverse employment and education. Most possessed and/or accessed CSEM involving: children under three and the most severe category (sadism/bestiality). Characteristics and censure involved: offender's motivations and explanations for offending (sub-themes included poor mental health and substance abuse, downplay or denial, and addiction); CSEM offences are not victimless crimes; and disparities in the offender's public versus private life. This study's findings are valuable for law, psychology and social work disciplines across Australia and internationally.

Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and the Criminal Law

Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) has been identified as significantly over-represented in the prison population and being a likely precipitant to engagement in criminal conduct. There should be little surprise in this fact, as impulsivity, inattentiveness to instructions, inability to retain information and limitations in the ability to think rationally through the likely consequences of actions have long been recognised as criminogenic factors. This article adds to the literature on ADHD and the criminal law. It reviews the history of ADHD diagnosis and treatment and scrutinises important English, Australian, New Zealand and Canadian judgments, in particular at appellate level, in which the relevance of ADHD to criminal offending has been evaluated. It notes the vulnerability of persons with ADHD in the context of being interviewed by police on suspicion of having committed criminal offences, it raises issues related to the fitness to stand trial of accused persons with ADHD and it identifies a need for forensic psychiatrists and psychologists to give particular attention in their reports and evidence to an assessment of the extent and nature of an offender's ADHD symptomatology and whether it played a causative or influential role in the person's engagement in criminal conduct, as well as to whether symptomatology is likely to be worsened by imprisonment or to render the offender especially vulnerable in a custodial environment.

To Use or Not to Use: No Consensus on Whether and How to Apply Genetic Information in the Justice System

Little is known about the public's attitudes towards applying genetic information in the justice system. This study aimed to extend previous research to explore this among the general public and those with training in law. Data were collected from over 10,000 participants, including 486 lawyers and law students. We analysed eight available relevant items from the International Genetic Literacy and Attitudes Survey (iGLAS). The majority of participants viewed genetic information as relevant to justice. For example, 65% believed that we should make provisions (legal and policy) to buffer the effects of genetic disadvantage on individuals, and almost 60% believed that genetic information should be taken into account in sentencing. At the same time, many participants (70%) disagreed that genetic influences on behaviour negate free will. The results of the correlational analyses suggest that people who consider genetic information relevant in one context tend to consider it relevant across all aspects of the justice system, including in sentencing, crime prevention and access to justice. Overall, the results suggest that views on the use of genetics by justice systems are complex and widely varied. Further research is needed to understand these complex views.

Risk and resources: A qualitative perspective on low-level sentencing in Virginia

Virginia's sentencing guidelines include alternative sanctions based on the use of a quantitative instrument called the Nonviolent Risk Assessment (NVRA) that identifies individuals convicted of drug and property crimes that are considered to be at lower risk of recidivism. Although nondispositive, the NVRA affords judges the discretion to grant alternative sentences to eligible low-risk defendants. In this study, we explore how judges make use of the NVRA instrument when sentencing individuals convicted of low-level drug and property crimes. Through semistructured interviews (N = 24) and inductive thematic analysis, the research team identified contextual factors that influence the use of the NVRA results, including: the availability of alternative programs in a community, the role of court actors, particularly prosecutors, in shaping the sentencing outcomes, as well as an individual judge's willingness to defer to or reject negotiated plea agreements offered by the prosecutor. Our research shows that while some judges are aware of and embrace the benefits of the instrument, others lack knowledge altogether of its function and empirical basis. We identified seven themes that account for variation in how actuarial risk is utilized in the sentencing process. Our findings provide insight into the practical challenges of using risk-based assessment as a tool for the sentencing of low-level convictions. As more states adopt risk-based approaches to sentencing, studying Virginia, which has gone farther than other states in legislating this strategy, becomes increasingly important.

Neuroscience, criminal responsibility and sentencing in an islamic country: Iran

The implications of neuroscience in the legal context have been considered in many countries; however, there has been very little (if any) research on the use of neuroscience in criminal law in Iran. Furthermore, because Iran's legal system incorporates Islamic rules, the legal implications of neuroscience might be fundamentally different from those of other countries. Accordingly, this paper will discuss the potential use of neuroscientific evidence in the evaluation of criminal responsibility and the assessment of sentencing within the Islamic legal system of Iran. The study will conclude that while there are a number of issues that may prevent the use of neuroscience in Iran's criminal justice system, there is a potential for the neuroscience to be used for purposes such as establishing the insanity defense and mitigating the punishment.

"Mental Disorder" and Sentencing: Resolving the Definitional Problem

Mental health problems affect the majority of people who face the sentencing process. The fact that a convicted offender has mental health problems may be taken into account in various ways: it may mitigate or aggravate the penalty, or may affect the type of sanction that is imposed or its conditions. At present, sentencing judges use a two-stage process to determine the effect (if any) that an offender's mental health problems should have on the sentencing determination. First, they ascertain whether the offender has a relevant mental health problem. If they find that he or she does, they then decide what effect that mental health problem should have on the sentencing determination. This article compares recent approaches that have been taken to the first stage of this process in Australia and Canada. It highlights difficulties with both approaches, and recommends replacing the current two-stage process with an integrated, single-stage approach.

Intimate Partner Homicide: Themes in Judges' Sentencing Remarks

The aim of this study was to analyse judges' sentencing remarks in cases of intimate partner homicide. Grounded theory methodology was used to undertake a qualitative analysis of the remarks, and the emanating data identified four key themes, as discussed in this article. These themes are: the sentencing of Aboriginal offenders; offender violence; the use of alcohol and/or drugs; and provocation. Broadly speaking, the data reflect that judges' sentencing remarks echo themes of offenders' denial of responsibility, thereby minimising harm and justifying violence against females. Also, judges fail to attribute a sufficient degree of responsibility to offenders for their voluntary consumption of alcohol or drugs and their subsequent violent behaviour. The study also found that, as a defence, provocation continues to favour males as the main beneficiaries. The study provides quantitative data which show that Aboriginal males are sanctioned less harshly than non-Aboriginal males.

Judicial sentencing considerations in cases of violent offenders versus sexual offenders

The overall aim of this study is to explore the judicial sentencing considerations in South Australian criminal cases of violent offenders versus sexual offenders in order to identify aggravating and mitigating factors. A total of 37 cases involving violent offenders (n = 25) and sexual offenders (n = 12) were downloaded from the Courts Administration Authority of South Australia website and subjected to a retrospective content analysis of the text contained in the published judicial sentencing remarks. The results reveal that offender- and offence-related aggravating factors are more salient judicial sentencing considerations in the cases of the violent offenders, whereas victim-related aggravating factors are more salient judicial considerations in the cases of the sexual offenders. Certain mitigating factors that were seen as salient considerations in the cases of the violent offenders - resulting in reduced culpability and a lighter sentence - appear to have had little impact in the cases of the sexual offenders. The implications of the findings for legal practice, social policy and future research are discussed.

Does the Victim-Offender Relationship Matter? Exploring the Sentencing of Female Homicide Offenders

Empirical research pertaining to sentencing of homicide offenders has been restricted almost exclusively to samples of male offenders in the United States. To fill this void in international research and to explore questions regarding the treatment of female homicide offenders further, we examined the extent to which victim-offender relationships and motives independently affect the length of sentences imposed by analyzing a nationally representative sample of female offenders adjudicated guilty of homicide in South Korea, over the period 1986-2013. In contrast to previous studies conducted in Canada, the Netherlands, and the United States, the current study found that the victim-offender relationship has no affect on sentence lengths. Rather, the most significant predictor for the sentence lengths of the female homicide offenders was the motive for killing. We discuss future directions for international comparative research on the roles of victim-offender relationships and motives in sentencing outcomes of female offenders.

The Use of Alcohol and/or Drugs in Intimate Partner Homicide: Themes in Judges' Sentencing Remarks

This article presents the results of a major theme arising out of a grounded theory analysis of judges' sentencing remarks for males and females sentenced for intimate partner homicide in Australia between July 2009 and June 2014. Specifically, this article focuses on judges' commentary regarding the use of alcohol and/or drugs as a contributing factor to the offending. The qualitative data indicate that despite the seriousness of the offence, sentencing judges often fail to attribute with clarity a sufficient degree of responsibility to male offenders for their voluntary consumption of alcohol and drugs and their subsequent violent behaviour. Additionally, judges attributed more blameworthiness to non-Aboriginal female offenders, who they believed were unable to take control of their dysfunctional lives whilst in an alcohol or drug-induced state.

Jurors' and Judges' Evaluation of Defendants with Autism and the Impact on Sentencing: A Systematic Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) Review of Autism Spectrum Disorder in the Courtroom

Concern has been highlighted in the literature regarding how juries and judges handle cases which involve a defendant with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). The relatively little research on judicial perceptions or decision-making regarding individuals with ASD indicates that judges have limited understanding and familiarity with high-functioning ASD (hfASD) and ASD. The present systematic review will identify studies which investigate jurors' (eg using mock jurors) and/or judges' evaluations of defendants with ASD and studies which investigate whether the defendant diagnosis of ASD impacts on sentencing. Only four studies were identified which investigated jurors' and/or judges' evaluations of a defendant with an ASD or investigated whether the defendant diagnosis of ASD impacts on sentencing. Further research is recommended which should include an evaluation of cases involving a defendant with an hfASD or ASD diagnosis comparing charges, pleas entered, procedural adjustments at court, evidence adduced about the defendant's condition, directions to juries, judicial remarks on the evidence (eg summing-up for the jury), verdicts and sentencing. This would enable the assessment of the specific offending behaviour and disorder of the defendant, and how these may be relevant to their mental capacity and culpability.

Inherited proclivity: When should neurogenetics mitigate moral culpability for purposes of sentencing?

Certain genes and neurobiology ('neurogenetics') may predispose some people to violent behavior. Increasingly, defendants introduce neurogenetic evidence as a mitigating factor during criminal sentencing. Identifying the cause of a criminal act, biological or otherwise, does not necessarily preclude moral or legal liability. However, valid scientific evidence of an inherited proclivity sometimes should be considered when evaluating whether a defendant is less morally culpable for a crime and perhaps less deserving of punishment. This Note proposes a two-pronged test to understand whether and when neurogenetic evidence should be considered to potentially mitigate an individual's culpability for criminal behavior. The first prong normatively assesses whether a defendant meets a threshold of having meaningfully managed his risk of harming others based on what he knew, or should have known, about his own proclivities to violence. The second prong considers the admissibility of the evidence based on whether the specific neurogenetic proclivity claimed by the defendant is relevant and adequately supported by science so as to be reliable. This proposed two-pronged test, beginning with an ethical threshold and followed by a scientific hurdle, can help judges and juries establish when to accept arguments for neurogenetic mitigation at sentencing, and when to reject them.

Effects of Behavioral Genetic Evidence on Perceptions of Criminal Responsibility and Appropriate Punishment

Demonstrations of a link between genetic variants and criminal behavior have stimulated increasing use of genetic evidence to reduce perceptions of defendants' responsibility for criminal behavior and to mitigate punishment. However, because only limited data exist regarding the impact of such evidence on decision makers and the public at large, we recruited a representative sample of the U.S. adult population (n=960) for a web-based survey. Participants were presented with descriptions of three legal cases and were asked to: determine the length of incarceration for a convicted murderer; adjudicate an insanity defense; and decide whether a defendant should receive the death penalty. A fully crossed, between-participants, factorial design was used, varying the type of evidence (none, genetic, neuroimaging, both), heinousness of the crime, and past criminal record, with sentence or verdict as the primary outcome. Also assessed were participants' apprehension of the defendant, belief in free will, political ideology, and genetic knowledge. Across all three cases, genetic evidence had no significant effects on outcomes. Neuroimaging data showed an inconsistent effect in one of the two cases in which it was introduced. In contrast, heinousness of the offense and past criminal record were strongly related to participants' decisions. Moreover, participants' beliefs about the controllability of criminal behavior and political orientations were significantly associated with their choices. Our findings suggest that neither hopes that genetic evidence will modify judgments of culpability and punishment nor fears about the impact of genetic evidence on decision makers are likely to come to fruition.

Why the impact? Negative affective change as a mediator of the effects of victim impact statements

Victim impact statements (VISs) represent a contentious legal and psychological point of debate. Current knowledge concerning the influence of VISs on jurors' emotional states and views of offenders is unclear. Using a sexual assault case, the present study attempted to disentangle these points of debate in the body of existing literature by (a) examining the direct influences of the presence of a VIS and juror Need for Affect (NFA) on sentencing recommendations, (b) assessing overall negative affective change as a mediating mechanism of these predictors, and (c) if mediation was present, identifying specific negative emotions that explain the effects of negative affective change. Results showed that presence of a VIS and a greater proclivity to approach emotions were associated with significantly greater sentencing recommendations. Moreover, change in negative affect mediated the effects of NFA approach and VIS exposure. Examination of changes in specific negative emotions revealed that increases in being upset and nervous mediated the impact of VIS condition; in addition, increases in hostility mediated the effect of NFA approach. Results are discussed with regard to emotion-based decision making of potential jurors, applications to trial process, and future research in the area.

Legal, individual, and environmental predictors of court disposition in a sample of serious adolescent offenders

Historically, the juvenile court has been expected to consider each youth's distinct rehabilitative needs in the dispositional decision-making process, rather than focusing on legal factors alone. This study examines the extent to which demographic, psychological, contextual, and legal factors, independently predict dispositional outcomes (i.e., probation vs. confinement) within two juvenile court jurisdictions (Philadelphia, Phoenix). The sample consists of 1,355 14- to 18-year-old male and female juvenile offenders adjudicated of a serious criminal offense. Results suggest that legal factors have the strongest influence on disposition in both jurisdictions. For example, a higher number of prior court referrals is associated with an increased likelihood of secure confinement in both jurisdictions. Juveniles adjudicated of violent offenses are more likely to receive secure confinement in Phoenix, but are more likely to be placed on probation in Philadelphia. Race is unrelated to dispositional outcome, but, males are consistently more likely than females to be placed in secure confinement. Importantly, individual factors (e.g., developmental maturity) generally were not powerful independent predictors of disposition. Finally, an examination of the predictors of juvenile versus adult court transfer in Phoenix indicated that males, older juveniles, and those with a violent adjudicated charge were more likely to be transferred to adult court, while juveniles scoring high on responsibility as well as those juveniles with an alcohol dependence diagnosis were more likely to be retained in juvenile court.