The Impact of Neuroimages in the Sentencing Phase of Capital Trials

Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, Forthcoming

32 Pages Posted: 6 Jun 2013 Last revised: 13 Jun 2013

See all articles by Michael J. Saks

Michael J. Saks

Arizona State University (ASU) - Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law

N. J. Schweitzer

Arizona State University

Eyal Aharoni

University of California, Santa Barbara - Department of Psychology

Kent Kiehl

University of New Mexico

Date Written: June 5, 2013

Abstract

Although recent research has found that neurological expert testimony is more persuasive than other kinds of expert and non-expert evidence, no impact has been found for neuroimages beyond that of neurological evidence sans images. Those findings hold true in the context of a mens rea defense and various forms of insanity defenses. The present studies test whether neuroimages afford heightened impact in the penalty phase of capital murder trials.

Two mock jury experiments (n=825 and n=882) were conducted online using nationally representative samples of persons who were jury-eligible and death-qualified. Participants were randomly assigned to experimental conditions varying the defendant’s diagnosis (psychopathy, schizophrenia, normal), type of expert evidence supporting the diagnosis (clinical, genetic, neurological sans images, neurological with images), evidence of future dangerousness (high, low), and whether the proponent of the expert evidence was the prosecution (arguing aggravation) or the defense (arguing mitigation).

For defendants diagnosed as psychopathic, neuroimages reduced judgments of responsibility and sentences of death. For defendants diagnosed as schizophrenic, neuroimages increased judgments of responsibility; non-image neurological evidence decreased death sentences and judgments of responsibility and dangerousness. All else equal, psychopaths were more likely to be sentenced to death than schizophrenics. When experts opined that defendant was dangerous, sentences of death increased. A backfire effect was found such that the offering party produced the opposite result than that being argued for when the expert evidence was clinical, genetic, or non-image neurological. But when the expert evidence included neuroimages, jurors moved in the direction argued by counsel.

Keywords: neuroscience, expert evidence, bias, psychopathy

Suggested Citation

Saks, Michael J. and Schweitzer, Nicholas J. and Aharoni, Eyal and Kiehl, Kent, The Impact of Neuroimages in the Sentencing Phase of Capital Trials (June 5, 2013). Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, Forthcoming, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2274527

Michael J. Saks (Contact Author)

Arizona State University (ASU) - Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law ( email )

111 E. Taylor Street
MC-9520
Phoenix, AZ 85004
United States

Nicholas J. Schweitzer

Arizona State University ( email )

PO BOX 37100
Phoenix, AZ 85069-7100
United States

HOME PAGE: http://lsprg.asu.edu

Eyal Aharoni

University of California, Santa Barbara - Department of Psychology ( email )

South Hall 5504
Santa Barbara, CA 93106
United States

Kent Kiehl

University of New Mexico ( email )

107 Humanitites Building
Albuquerque, NM 87131-1221
United States

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
439
Abstract Views
3,400
Rank
121,332
PlumX Metrics