Corpus ID: 145265595

The Language of Mens Rea

  title={The Language of Mens Rea},
  author={Matthew R Ginther and Francis X. Shen and Richard J Bonnie and Morris B Hoffman and Owen D Jones and Ren{\'e} Marois and Kenneth W Simons},
  journal={Vanderbilt Law Review},
This article answers two key questions. First: Do jurors understand and apply the criminal mental state categories the way that the widely influential Model Penal Code (MPC) assumes? Second: If not, what can be done about it? In prior work we challenged numerous assumptions underlying the use of the MPC mental state architecture, which divides guilty minds into four kinds: purposeful, knowing, reckless, and negligent. Our experiments showed that subjects had profound difficulty categorizing… Expand

Figures and Tables from this paper

The misjudgment of criminal responsibility.
Results demonstrate that, in a surprisingly high percentage of cases across many conditions, individual decision-makers are indeed likely to attribute the most culpable mental state (purpose) to defendants, even when the facts on the record are judged by legal experts to depict no more than negligent or reckless conduct. Expand
Mens rea ascription, expertise and outcome effects: Professional judges surveyed
The first empirical investigation into intentionality ascriptions made by professional judges is reported, which finds that professionals are sensitive to the moral valence of outcome type, and that the worse the outcome, the higher the propensity to ascribe intentionality. Expand
Modelling the effects of crime type and evidence on judgments about guilt
An experimental approach that complements conventional mock-juror experiments and case studies by providing a rapid, high-throughput screen for identifying preconceptions and biases that can influence how jurors and lawyers evaluate evidence in criminal cases is described. Expand
American Punitiveness and Mass Incarceration: Psychological Perspectives on Retributive and Consequentialist Responses to Crime
A recent National Academy of Sciences Report explored the drivers of the fourfold increase in incarceration rates in the United States and provided a firm recommendation for significant reduction inExpand
The Neuroscience of Blame and Punishment
In the last five years, a great deal has been learned about how human brains address the social problem of punishing wrongdoers. Although it is far too early to be confident that these insights willExpand
Moral outrage drives the interaction of harm and culpable intent in third-party punishment decisions.
It is shown that-unlike anger, contempt, and disgust-moral outrage is evoked by the integration of culpable intent and severe harm, and that the expression of moral outrage alone mediates the relationship between this integrative process and punishment decisions. Expand
Intent and Liability in Employment Discrimination
The Silicon Valley Ellen Pao trial brought to the forefront once again the changing nature of discrimination in the workplace with its focus on a culture of bias and the prevalence of unconsciousExpand
Outcome Effects, Moral Luck and the Hindsight Bias
In a series of ten preregistered experiments (N=2043), we investigate the effect of outcome valence on judgments of probability, negligence, and culpability – a phenomenon sometimes labelled moralExpand
The Influence of Psychosocial Immaturity, Age, and Mental State Beliefs on Culpability Judgments About Juvenile Offenders
Juvenile offenders are treated harshly in that they receive adult-like punishment and are incarcerated when alternatives to incarceration are possible. Research on adolescent offenders suggests thatExpand
Parsing the Behavioral and Brain Mechanisms of Third-Party Punishment
Using fMRI, a novel experimental design is implemented to functionally dissociate the mechanisms underlying evaluation, integration, and decision that were conflated in previous studies of third-party punishment, providing a blueprint of the brain mechanisms by which neutral third parties render punishment decisions. Expand