Search results

Neuroscientific research on addictions has prompted a paradigm shift from a moral to a medical understanding – with substantial implications for legal professionals’ interactions with and decision-making surrounding individuals with addiction. This study complements prior work on US defense attorney’s understandings of addiction by investigating two further perspectives: the potential “next generation” of legal professionals in the USA (criminal justice undergraduates) and legal professionals from another system (Germany). This paper aims to assess their views on the brain disease model of addiction, dominance and relevance of this model, the responsibility of affected persons and preferred sources of information.

Views of 74 US criminal justice undergraduate students and 74 German legal professionals were assessed using Likert scales and open-ended questions in an online survey.

Neuroscientific research findings on addictions and views that addiction is a brain disease were rated as significantly more relevant by American students to their potential future work than by German legal professionals. However, a majority of both samples agreed that addiction is a brain disease and that those affected are responsible for their condition and actions. Sources of information most frequently used by both groups were publications in legal academic journals.

In the USA, information for legal professionals needs to be expanded and integrated into the education of its “next generation,” while in Germany it needs to be developed and promoted. Legal academic journals appear to play a primary role in the transfer of research on addiction into legal practice.

This study complements prior work on US defense attorney’s understandings of addiction by investigating two further perspectives.

The purpose of this paper is to present preliminary survey data measuring attitudes of members of the US public on the importance, existence, and potential legal use of biological risk factors for criminality.

Survey data were collected from an online sample of US public in conjunction with an experiment not included in this report.

Data suggest that the public generally agrees that there are certain biological characteristics that make one more likely to exhibit criminality. The public does not appear to agree on whether or not this type of evidence should be allowed in court, but the large majority of respondents were worried about its potential misuse.

Social risk factors were generally viewed by respondents as more important to explaining criminality, suggesting that sociological views of crime may be still more prevalent in the lay public. Worries about biosocial risk factor evidence being misused in court have been previously discussed in academic literature, but the public also appears to share these concerns. The public especially worries that this kind of evidence could be used to incorrectly excuse an offender’s behavior, showing that they may be weary of this evidence in court as potential jurors. Attitudes of many members of the public on these issues may be affected by academic disagreement in the criminology community on the importance of these issues.

Scholars have emphasized the need for discussion on how the US public views biosocial risk factors for criminality. As there are no known data of this type, these data are the first of their kind.

The purpose of this paper is to explore how judges perceive High Functioning Autistic Spectrum Disorders (hfASDs) and the disorders’ effects on an offender's ability to formulate criminal intent and control behaviour.

Semi-structured interviews on topics related to offenders with hfASDs were conducted with 21 California Superior Court Judges. A coding scheme was developed and an iterative qualitative coding process was used for analysis.

Analysis yielded three major themes on how an hfASD diagnosis affects an offender's ability to regulate actions and criminal behaviour. Interviewed judges reported beliefs that hfASD offenders view the world in a different way and that much of their behaviour is not under their direct control. Judges reported these perceptions likely affect how they criminally process and make legal decisions regarding offenders with hfASDs.

The sample size was small and therefore no statistical significance can be drawn from results; findings cannot be applied to perceptions or experiences of the entire California Superior Court Judge population.

Past academic research reports that individuals with hfASDs that offend often do so because of specific symptoms associated with the disorder. This presents a complex dilemma for the criminal justice system regarding how best to understand the disorder and process these offenders. This study and its findings aim to shed light on issues judges encounter in determining these offenders’ responsibility and sentencing, in what ways this information might be integrated into judicial decision making, and areas where future research is needed.