Biocriminology and the Adjudication of Criminal Responsibility: Is There a Consensus Among Scientists' Verdicts?

Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC)

Status: Completed

Conditions: Criminalism

Treatments: Behavioral: Biocriminological Evidence

Study type: Interventional

Funder types: Other

Identifiers

NCT05007314

2021-07-16-D.S.V.-V2-3332

Details and patient eligibility

About

Because of the evolving nature of psychology research, non-scientists are more likely to struggle or misinterpret evidence regarding a person's psychological state. Misconceptions may thus be highly prevalent within the justice system, leading to negative consequences for people with psychological or neurobiological disorders. At the same time, no research has been conducted to compare the punishment perspectives of non-scientists, that typically make sentencing decisions, to scientists who possess a more advanced understanding of human biology and behavior.

Full description

In this study, closely inspired by the paradigms of Berryessa, Coppola, and Salvato, perspectives on punishment based on psychobiological explanations of behaviour are assessed, aiming to understand how scientists with knowledge of human psychobiology versus lay people (of similar educational level) interpret offending behaviour. Human-science is contrasted to natural-science/arts graduates because the former have been exposed to and may possess scientific knowledge that shapes their understanding of behaviour, their views, and potential (essentialist) biases. In contrast, non-scientists have been found to possess scientific misconceptions that can impact their sentencing decisions. This leads to the question whether scientists may draw different judgements based on their professional knowledge and experience with psychological phenomena. If indeed scientists with greater insight on human behaviour are found to hold less punitive views on punishment and rehabilitation, that has important implications for criminal justice systems that rely on lay peoples' understanding of science.

One hundred sixty participants who completed all study procedures (2 main groups of 80 participants) will be surveyed. A sample size calculation was performed using G*Power version 3.1.9.4, based on Berryessa and colleagues who conducted a similar survey study in 2021 with comparable outcome measures and analyses. The required effect size is based upon approximately 3-4 outcome measures. The primary research question is between-groups, while secondary ones include within groups measures. Based on the power analysis, a sample of 160 participants will be targeted, which is enough for sufficient power for f = 0.25, power = 0.80, df = 4, for 2 different groups.

Enrollment: 160 patients

Sex: All

Ages: 18 to 65 years old

Volunteers: Accepts Healthy Volunteers

Inclusion criteria

• Aged between 18 and 65
• Holding a university diploma or equivalent

Exclusion criteria

• Participants who did not complete the survey (appropriately) will be excluded

Trial design

Primary purpose: Basic Science

Allocation: Randomized

Interventional model: Parallel Assignment

Masking: Double Blind

---

160 participants in 2 patient groups

Human Science

Experimental group

Description:

Arm 1 will include university graduates that hold at least a science undergraduate degree (or equivalent) in human science, including psychology, neuroscience, human biology, or medicine.

Treatment:

Behavioral: Biocriminological Evidence

Natural or non-science

Active Comparator group

Description:

Arm 2 will include university graduates from non-human or non-scientific fields such as engineering, history, language studies, or law.

Treatment:

Behavioral: Biocriminological Evidence