Neurogenetic evidence in the courtroom: a randomised controlled trial with German judges
Related Research units
Abstract
Methods Participating German judges (n=372) received a hypothetical case vignette of aggravated battery, and were randomly assigned to expert testimonies that either involved a neurogenetic explanation of the offender's psychopathy or only a psychiatric diagnosis of psychopathy. Testimonies were presented either by the prosecution or defence.
Results Neurogenetic evidence significantly reduced judges’ estimation of legal responsibility of the convict. Nevertheless, the average prison sentence was not affected in the German legal system. Most interestingly, analysis of judges’ reasoning revealed that neurogenetic arguments presented by the prosecution significantly increased the number of judges (23% compared with ∼6%) ordering an involuntary commitment in a forensic psychiatric hospital. Such an involuntary commitment due to diminished or absent legal responsibility may last much longer than a prison sentence in the German legal system.
Conclusions Our data, thus, demonstrate the socially contingent nature of legal responses to neurogenetic evidence in criminal cases.
Bibliographical data
Original language | English |
---|---|
ISSN | 0022-2593 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - 01.11.2015 |