Neuroscience and punishment: from theory to practice

Allan McCay, Jeanette Kennett

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

In a 2004 paper, Greene and Cohen predicted that neuroscience would revolutionise criminal justice by presenting a mechanistic view of human agency that would change people’s intuitions about retributive punishment. According to their theory, this change in intuitions would in turn lead to the demise of retributivism within criminal justice systems. Their influential paper has been challenged, most notably by Morse, who has argued that it is unlikely that there will be major changes to criminal justice systems in response to neuroscience. In this paper we commence a tentative empirical enquiry into the claims of these theorists, focusing on Australian criminal justice. Our analysis of Australian cases is not supportive of claims about the demise of retributive justice, and instead suggests the possibility that neuroscience may be used by the courts to calibrate retributive desert. It is thus more consistent with the predictive claims of Morse than of Greene and Cohen. We also consider evidence derived from interviews with judges, and this leads us to consider the possibility of a backlash against evidence of brain impairment. Finally we note that change in penal aims may be occurring that is unrelated to developments in neuroscience.

LanguageEnglish
Number of pages12
JournalNeuroethics
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 1 Jan 2019

Fingerprint

Criminal Law
Punishment
Neurosciences
Intuition
Social Justice
Interviews
Brain

Cite this

@article{0171c21a8bb24f8d8e9b32923276f326,
title = "Neuroscience and punishment: from theory to practice",
abstract = "In a 2004 paper, Greene and Cohen predicted that neuroscience would revolutionise criminal justice by presenting a mechanistic view of human agency that would change people’s intuitions about retributive punishment. According to their theory, this change in intuitions would in turn lead to the demise of retributivism within criminal justice systems. Their influential paper has been challenged, most notably by Morse, who has argued that it is unlikely that there will be major changes to criminal justice systems in response to neuroscience. In this paper we commence a tentative empirical enquiry into the claims of these theorists, focusing on Australian criminal justice. Our analysis of Australian cases is not supportive of claims about the demise of retributive justice, and instead suggests the possibility that neuroscience may be used by the courts to calibrate retributive desert. It is thus more consistent with the predictive claims of Morse than of Greene and Cohen. We also consider evidence derived from interviews with judges, and this leads us to consider the possibility of a backlash against evidence of brain impairment. Finally we note that change in penal aims may be occurring that is unrelated to developments in neuroscience.",
keywords = "Neurolaw, Neuroscience, Punishment, Retribution, Sentencing",
author = "Allan McCay and Jeanette Kennett",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s12152-018-09394-0",
language = "English",
journal = "Neuroethics",
issn = "1874-5490",
publisher = "Springer, Springer Nature",

}

Neuroscience and punishment : from theory to practice. / McCay, Allan; Kennett, Jeanette.

In: Neuroethics, 01.01.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Neuroscience and punishment

T2 - Neuroethics

AU - McCay,Allan

AU - Kennett,Jeanette

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - In a 2004 paper, Greene and Cohen predicted that neuroscience would revolutionise criminal justice by presenting a mechanistic view of human agency that would change people’s intuitions about retributive punishment. According to their theory, this change in intuitions would in turn lead to the demise of retributivism within criminal justice systems. Their influential paper has been challenged, most notably by Morse, who has argued that it is unlikely that there will be major changes to criminal justice systems in response to neuroscience. In this paper we commence a tentative empirical enquiry into the claims of these theorists, focusing on Australian criminal justice. Our analysis of Australian cases is not supportive of claims about the demise of retributive justice, and instead suggests the possibility that neuroscience may be used by the courts to calibrate retributive desert. It is thus more consistent with the predictive claims of Morse than of Greene and Cohen. We also consider evidence derived from interviews with judges, and this leads us to consider the possibility of a backlash against evidence of brain impairment. Finally we note that change in penal aims may be occurring that is unrelated to developments in neuroscience.

AB - In a 2004 paper, Greene and Cohen predicted that neuroscience would revolutionise criminal justice by presenting a mechanistic view of human agency that would change people’s intuitions about retributive punishment. According to their theory, this change in intuitions would in turn lead to the demise of retributivism within criminal justice systems. Their influential paper has been challenged, most notably by Morse, who has argued that it is unlikely that there will be major changes to criminal justice systems in response to neuroscience. In this paper we commence a tentative empirical enquiry into the claims of these theorists, focusing on Australian criminal justice. Our analysis of Australian cases is not supportive of claims about the demise of retributive justice, and instead suggests the possibility that neuroscience may be used by the courts to calibrate retributive desert. It is thus more consistent with the predictive claims of Morse than of Greene and Cohen. We also consider evidence derived from interviews with judges, and this leads us to consider the possibility of a backlash against evidence of brain impairment. Finally we note that change in penal aims may be occurring that is unrelated to developments in neuroscience.

KW - Neurolaw

KW - Neuroscience

KW - Punishment

KW - Retribution

KW - Sentencing

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85060191899&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s12152-018-09394-0

DO - 10.1007/s12152-018-09394-0

M3 - Article

JO - Neuroethics

JF - Neuroethics

SN - 1874-5490

ER -