Page 1
Two Social Psychologists' Reflections on Situationism and the Criminal JusticeSystem
Page 1 of 36
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2014.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: MiamiUniversity - Ohio; date: 06 October 2014
UniversityPressScholarshipOnline
OxfordScholarshipOnline
Ideology,Psychology,andLawJonHansonandJohnJost
Printpublicationdate:2012PrintISBN-13:9780199737512PublishedtoOxfordScholarshipOnline:May2012DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199737512.001.0001
TwoSocialPsychologists'ReflectionsonSituationismandtheCriminalJusticeSystem
LeeRoss
DonnaShestowsky
DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199737512.003.0024
AbstractandKeywords
Thecriminaljusticesystemreliesonlaynotionsofculpabilitythatareincompatiblewithcontemporarysocialpsychology,andarguablywithreasonablestandardsoffairnessandjustice.Agivenwrongdoer’sactionsareviewedinthatfieldlessastheproductofstabledispositionor“character”andmorethatofsituationfactorsandtheircumulativeconsequencesthaneitherlayorlegalconceptionsacknowledge.Moreover,thelegaldistinctionsmadebetweenrelevantandirrelevantmitigatingfactorsareonesthatsocialpsychologistswoulddeemuncompellingandevenincoherent.Whilerecognizingtheimpedimentstodramaticsystemicchange,andtheimportantrolethatpublicapprovalplaysinmaintainingthecriminaljusticesystem,thischapterquestionswhetherjusticecantrulybeservedwhenthelaw’stheoryofculpabilityissofundamentallyatoddswiththelessonsofsocialscientificresearch.Italsoconsiderstheimplicationsofamore
Page 2
Two Social Psychologists' Reflections on Situationism and the Criminal JusticeSystem
Page 2 of 36
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2014.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: MiamiUniversity - Ohio; date: 06 October 2014
enlightenedview.
Keywords:character,situationalfactors,justice,socialpsychology,culpability,cumulativeconsequences,naïverealism
Thischapterdiscussesthetensionbetweenlayviewsofaccountability,freewill,andmitigatingcircumstances—viewsreflectedinourcriminaljusticesystem—andcontemporarypsychology'sunderstandingofthedynamicrelationshipbetweenthepersonandthesituationindeterminingbehavior.*1Insodoing,italsoaddressesthetensionbetweenutilitarianconcernsofsocialorderandethicalconcernsaboutthejustimpositionofpunishment.Weshouldbeclearfromtheoutsetthatwearenotadvocatingforthesignificantshiftsinlegalpracticeandpolicythatfollowfromtheanalysisweoffer.Werecognizethatthelegalsystemcannot,andshouldnot,divergetoofarfromtheviewsoffairnessandefficacythatunderliethe“laypsychology”thatpervadesoursocietyifitistoretainthetrustandsupportofthepublic.Rather,wehighlighthowlayunderstandingsaboutthedeterminantsofbehaviorareatoddswiththelessonsofthebehavioralsocialsciences,andweoffersomesuggestionsregardingtheneedforeducationabouttherelativepowerofinfluencesthatareconsideredindiscussionsofmitigationandappropriatepunishmentforviolationsofthelaw.Thosesuggestions,webelieve,strikeabalancebetweenpoliticalandpragmaticconcernsandthoselessons.
Wefirstconsiderthetendencyforlaypeopletounderestimatetheimpactofsituationalpressuresandconstraintsandthustomakeunwarranteddispositionalorcharacterologicalattributions.Thistendency,wethensuggest,isexacerbatedbynaïverealism—theassumedveridicalityandobjectivityofone'sownperceptionsandjudgmentsrelativetothoseofone'speers.Ourmaincontentionisthatthelegalsystem'sconsiderationofmitigatingfactorsor“excuses”reflectslayconceptionsofbehavioralcausationanddualisticnotionsof“freewill”thatareneitherempiricallynorlogicallydefensible.Theimpositionofcriminalpunishment,weconcede,mayservevalidgoalsrangingfromgeneralandspecificdeterrenceofantisocialbehaviortosatisfyingthe(p.613) needforcatharsisandpromotingthesensethatjusticehasbeenserved.Butthecurrentworkingsofthecriminaljusticesystemshouldtroubletheconscienceofanyonewhothinksdeeplyaboutthedeterminantsofhumanbehavior.Alogicallycoherentaccountofbehavioralcausationthatincorporatesthelessonsofempiricalresearch,wecontend,wouldattheveryleastcompelustotreattransgressorswithmorecompassionthantheytypicallyreceive.
I.LayDispositionismandUnderappreciationofthePoweroftheSituationAsallstudentsofsocialpsychologyknow,whenpeoplearecalledupontoevaluateorpredictthebehaviorofothers,theytendtounderestimatetheimpactofsituationalorenvironmentalfactorsandtooverestimatetheimpactofdispositionalones.2CulturalpsychologiststellusthatmembersofindividualisticculturessuchasthoseoftheUnitedStates,Canada,Australia,NewZealand,andmostofWesternEuropeareparticularlylikelytoshowsuchadispositionistbias(seeGabler,Stern,&Miserandino,1998;Markus&Kitayama,1991).Thislaydispositionismleadspeopletooverestimatethedegreeofstabilitythatwillbefoundinagivenindividual'sbehaviorovertimeandthedegreeof
Page 3
Two Social Psychologists' Reflections on Situationism and the Criminal JusticeSystem
Page 3 of 36
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2014.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: MiamiUniversity - Ohio; date: 06 October 2014
consistencythatwillbefoundacrossdifferentsituations.Peoplearesimilarlypronetounderestimatetheextenttowhichchangesintheparticularcircumstancesorenvironmentconfrontingthatindividualmightsignificantlychangehisorherbehavior.
Onespecificimplicationoflaydispositionismforjudgmentsmadewithinthelegalsystemisclear:inattemptingtounderstand,predict,andcontrolproscribedbehavior,peopleareapttoinfertraitssuchas“criminality”andrelyonoverlybroadandsimplisticnotionsofgoodorbad“character”withoutproperlyappreciatingthepowerofthesituationalpressuresandconstraintsthatshapebehavior.Thedifficultyofgettingjurorstoacceptclaimsofentrapmentorofinducedfalseconfessionsmayreflectthisshortcoming.Thatis,weknowthatjurorsaredisinclinedtobelievethat“traps”setbypoliceofficerscouldinduceotherwisehonestpeople(likethem)tocommitcriminalacts.3Theyalsofailtoappreciatehowhonestpeople(likethem)couldbeinducedbypsychologicaltacticssuchaspromisesofleniency(asopposedtophysicaltorture)toconfesstocrimestheydidnotcommit.4
Assessmentsregardingtheroleofsituationalpressuresandconstraintsinproducingparticularmisdeeds,however,applytoawiderrangeofcriminalcasesandpotentialdefenses.5Forcrimesrequiringproofofcriminalnegligence,forexample,thelegalsystemcommonlyinvokesthenotionofa“reasonable”person—thatis,itasksjurorsorjudgestoconsidertheextenttowhich(p.614) areasonablepersonwouldhavebeenabletoanticipatetheconsequencesofhisorheractionsand,assumingthatsuchconsequenceswereanticipated,theextenttowhichareasonablepersonwouldhavefeltcompelledtoactinaparticularfashionunderthecircumstancesinquestion.6
Moreover,iftheactorisperceivedtohavelacked“choice”orfreedomtoactotherwise,theactionisdeemedtobejustifiedandnoncriminal,eveniftheconsequencesoftheactionwereapparentatthetime.7Thenecessitydefenseillustratesthispoint.Thisdefenseallowsanindividualtoconcedetheactconstitutingthecrimebutavoidpenaltywheneitheractinginthegreatergoodorchoosingthelesseroftwoevils.8Actionsthatwouldlikelybedeemedjustifiedinclude,forexample,aprisonerescapingfromaburningprison,oradriverdisobeyingtrafficlawstohastenaseverelyinjuredindividual'stransporttothehospital(Martin,2005).9
If,ontheotherhand,theactorisnotperceivedaslacking“choice”but,rather,ashavingacteddeliberatelyandwithsomedegreeoffreedomtohaveactedotherwise,situationalfactorsbecomerelevant,notindeterminingguiltversusinnocence,butinweighingany“extenuating”or“mitigating”factorswhendecidingontheappropriatepunishment.Inmakingthelatterdetermination,jurorsandjudgesessentiallyassesstheextenttowhichthebehaviorinquestionreflectedthedefendant'sdispositionorcharacterasopposedtothepressuresandconstraintsofthesituationheorshewasinwhentheoffensewascommitted.Tosomeextentthetestisoneofempathy—thatis,anassessmentofthelikelihoodthatonemighthaverespondedsimilarlyinthefaceoftherelevantsituationalfactors.
Whattherelevantresearchobligesustorecognizeisthatlaypeople'sintuitionsabout
Page 4
Two Social Psychologists' Reflections on Situationism and the Criminal JusticeSystem
Page 4 of 36
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2014.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: MiamiUniversity - Ohio; date: 06 October 2014
howtheyorother“reasonable”peoplewouldhaveactedinthefaceofvarioussituationalfactorsandconstraintsarelikelytobeerroneous.Attributionsabouttheroleof“badcharacter”versus“situationalpressuresandconstraints”areapttoexaggeratetheformeranddisregardthelattertoanextentthatisnotwarrantedbytheevidenceofexperimentalsocialpsychology.Thatrelativelackofinsightinconsideringthepowerofthesituationisparticularlylikelyincasesinwhichtheexternalinfluencesatplayarenotovertthreats,traumas,deprivationsoropportunitiesforenrichmentbut,rather,subtlermattersofpeerpressureorofsituationsinducingsmallinitialtransgressionsthatinturnlead,stepbystep,toincreasinglyseriousones.Researchconductedinthesituationisttraditionimpliesthatmany,ifnotall,people(includingthosewhositinjudgmentoftransgressors)couldbeled,bytherightsetofsubtleandnotsosubtlesituationalpressuresandconstraints,tocommitsimilartransgressionsormoregenerallytodothingsthattheywouldcondemnothersfordoingandthattheybelievethemselvesincapableofdoingunderanyconceivablecircumstances.10(p.615)
Socialpsychologistscertainlydonotclaimthatindividualdifferencesarenonexistentorunimportantindeterminingbehavior.Nordoweclaimthatallactorswillrespondsimilarlytoagivensituationorsetofincentivesanddisincentives.Indeed,oneofourdiscipline'smainintellectualcontributionsoverthepasthalf-centuryhasinvolveduncoveringthefactorsthatproducevariabilityandunpredictabilityinthewayindividualsrespondtothesituationsandeventstheyexperience.
Whatlaboratoryandfieldstudieshavedemonstratedabouttheimpactof“thepersonversusthesituation”canbestatedsuccinctly:seeminglysmallandsubtlemanipulationsofthesocialsituationoftenhavemuchlargereffectsonbehaviorthanmostlayobserverswouldpredict.Thoseeffects,moreover,arelikelyto“swamp”theimpactofpreviouslyobservedormeasuredindividualdifferencesinpersonality,values,ortemperament.Furthermore,thepredictabilityandstabilityofbehaviorobservablethatweseeintheeverydaybehaviorofourpeers,familymembers,andworkmatesmayresultlessfromthestabilityof“character”thanfromthestabilityandpowerofthesocialcircumstancesthatdirectandconstrainbehaviorinparticularsettingsorthecircumstancesinwhichwehavemadeourobservations.Asaconsequence,changesinroles,expectations,incentivestructures,andotherfeaturesoftheactor'ssocialenvironment,includingthosethatsimplyreduceopportunitiesforwrongdoing,arelikelytoproducegreaterchangesinbehaviorthanmostlaypeople—includingpresumablymostjudges,jurors,andpolicymakers—wouldanticipate.11
Therelevanceofresearchonthepowerofsituationandthedispositionistbiasinlayattributionsregardingcriminalbehaviorshouldbeobvioustosocialpsychologistsandtomostpeoplefamiliarwiththefindingsandinsightsofthatfield.Equallyobviousisthepotentialvalueofalteringinfluentialfeaturesofthesocialenvironmentthatareconducivetocriminalbehavior,suchastheprevailingsubgroupnorms,thesalienceofpoorrolemodelsandtheabsenceofgoodones,andtheeaseofaccesstoguns,alcohol,anddrugs.Lessobvious,asweshallelaboratebelow,aretheimplicationsofasituationistperspectiveforconcernsofcriminaljusticeor,morespecifically,fordecisionsaboutthe
Page 5
Two Social Psychologists' Reflections on Situationism and the Criminal JusticeSystem
Page 5 of 36
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2014.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: MiamiUniversity - Ohio; date: 06 October 2014
justinflictionofpunishment.Fornow,letussimplynotethattotheextentthatourlegalinstitutionsandpracticesreflecterroneouslayconceptionsaboutthedeterminantsofbehavior,thoseinstitutionsandpracticesarelikelytobelesseffective,andarguablylessfair,thantheywouldbeiftheywereguidedbymoreaccurateandinsightfulconceptions.12Theappropriatenessofeducatingand“de-biasing”lawmakersandpolicymakersaboutsituationalversusdispositionaldeterminantsofbehavioristhusworthyofcontemplation.Andinsofarascriminalstatutesarecreatedbylegislatorswhoaresomewhat(p.616) directedbytheprevailingattitudesoftheirconstituents,theimportanceofeducatingand“de-biasing”thoseconstituentsisclear.
Providingsupportforthesituationistassertionsthatwehaveofferedherehaslongbeenoneofexperimentalsocialpsychology'sprimaryundertakings.Wewon'tdigressheretoreviewtheresultsofthesituationistclassicsbyAsch,orMilgram,orLatanéandDarley,orFreedmanandFraser,13orotherinvestigatorswhoseworkenlivensourtextbooks.Butitisperhapsworthnotingthatmostoftheseclassicstudiesdidnotexplicitlycontrastactualeffectsofexperimentalmanipulationsorcircumstanceswithexpectedeffects.Nor,generally,didtheypitsituationistfactorsagainstmeasuresoftraitsordispositionsthatonemighthaveexpectedtoaccountforvariabilityinparticipants'responsestothesituationormanipulationinquestion.Rather,theinvestigatorsimplicitlyinvitedreaderstoconsidertheirownexpectationsabouthownormaladultslikethemselveswouldrespondtothosecircumstancesormanipulations,andthenpresentedfindingsthatviolatedthoseexpectations.Thestudiesalsoinvitedustoinfer(butdidnotprovidedatatoshow)thatinformationaboutactors'personalitiesorpastbehaviormaytelluslessaboutwhowouldbe,say,altruisticversuspunitiveorcooperativeversuscompetitiveinagivensituation,thanwouldinformationaboutvariouspsychologicallyrelevantfeaturesofthatsituation.
Ethicalconcernsprecludemostformsofexperimentalresearchonthecross-situationalconsistencyofreal“criminality.”Thatis,contemporaryresearchregulationsdonotallowresearcherstoexposeacross-sectionofrespondentstoarangeofpotentiallycrime-provokingcircumstancesandobservethedegreetowhichtheindividualswhoresorttocrimeinonesituationalsoresorttocrimeinothersituations.Buttheclassicstudiesontraitssuchashonesty14suggestthat“criminality”isunlikelytobeatraitthatmanifestsitselfwithoutregardtothespecificsofattendingcircumstances.Moreover,insofarascertainindividualsdoshowcross-situationalconsistencyincriminalbehavior,itislikelytobedueatleastasmuchtotheconstantorrecurrentnatureoftheincentivesandconstraintsintheirenvironmentsasitistotheirenduringpersonaldispositions.15Indeed,whatweterm“good”or“bad”charactermayitselfbeareflectionofexposuretoearliersituationalforcesandconstraintsoverwhichtheindividualactorexercisedlittle,ifany,control.
II.Subjectivism,NaïveRealism,andAttributionsofObjectivityVersusBiasInconsideringtheimpactofthesituationonbehavior,itisimportanttonotethatpeoplenecessarilyrespondnottosomeobjectiverealitybuttotherealitythattheyperceive.Indeed,muchofcontemporarypsychologyfocuseson(p.617) theprocessesandbiasesthatdeterminehowobjectivestimuliaresubjectivelyinterpretedbythe
Page 6
Two Social Psychologists' Reflections on Situationism and the Criminal JusticeSystem
Page 6 of 36
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2014.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: MiamiUniversity - Ohio; date: 06 October 2014
individual,andalsoonthestepsbywhichthoseinterpretationsleadfirsttoemotions,motivations,andintentionstoact,andultimatelytobehavioritself.Assuch,legalscholarsandotherswhoattempttounderstandbehaviorinvariousdomainsoflegalconcern—includinglawyerswhoseektoinfluencejurorsandjudges—haveaclearinterestinmakinguseoftherelevanttheoreticalinsightsandempiricalfindings.
Cognitiveandsocialpsychologistshavewrittenextensivelyontherolethatcognitiveschemasorscriptsplayinorganizinghumanperception,recall,andevaluation.Morerecentinvestigationshavefocusedontheimpactofnonconsciousprocesses,includingaffectiveprocesses,andontheefficacyofsubtle“priming”manipulationsininfluencingjudgmentsanddecisionmaking.16Ourpresentdiscussionhasanarrowerfocus—onethatdealsnotwiththefactorsthatdeterminethewaypeoplemakejudgmentsbut,rather,withthebeliefsthatindividualshaveabouttheaccuracyandobjectivityoftheirownparticularconstructionsofreality.Suchbeliefs,weargue,arethesourceofthenegativeassessmentspeoplemakeaboutindividualswhomtheyfindtohaveconstruedthatrealitydifferently.Therelevantepistemicstance,whichwetermnaïverealism,17canbesummarizedinfirst-persontermswiththepropositionthat“Iseeactionsandeventsastheyareinreality—thatmyperceptionsandreactionsarearelativelyunmediatedreflectionofthe“realnature”ofthoseactionsandevents.”Onecorollaryofthispropositionisthat“Ibelieveotherpeoplewill,oratleastshould,sharemyperceptionsandreactions.”Anothercorollaryisthat“totheextentthatothers'perceptionsandreactionsdifferfrommyown,thoseperceptionsandreactionsareunreasonable—theproductnotofrealityitselfbutthatofsomedistortinginfluenceonperceptionandjudgment.”18Thisaccountofnaïverealismwasoriginallyformulatedtodescribethedivergentattributionsthatpeoplemakeabouttheirownversusothers'perceptionsofsocialissuesandevents.Butitappliesequallywelltotheattributionspeoplemakeaboutthosewhoviolatemoralorlegalnormsandtotheattributionstheymakeaboutthosewhodisagreewiththemaboutthefairnessofparticularsanctions.
Thetenetsofnaïverealismhavesomeimportantimplications.Oneimplicationisthatwetendtooverestimatetheproportionofotherpeoplewhoagreewithusorwouldrespondsimilarlytousinanygivencontext(theubiquitous“falseconsensus”effect;seeRoss,Greene,&House,1977).Asecondimplicationisthatwetendtothinkthatourownviewsonanysocialorpoliticaldimensionfallattheappropriatepointonthatdimension—forexample,thatweareexactlyasliberalasitisreasonabletobeontheideologicaldimension(p.618) andthatthosewhoaremoreliberalarenaïveandunpragmaticwhilethosewhoarelessliberalarehard-heartedandgreedy.Similarperceptionsareapttocolorourviewsaboutthelegalsystem.Inparticular,wearelikelytobelievethatthosewhofavorlesspunishmentthanwedolackcommonsenseandthatthosewhofavorharsherpunishmentlackcompassion.19
III.ImplicationsofaSituationistPerspectiveSocialpsychology'slessonsaboutthepowerofsituationalpressuresandconstraints,andabouttheimportanceofattendingtothesocialactor'sconstrualor“definition”ofthesituationsthatthatactorfaces,haveimportantimplicationsforcrime-reductionpolicies.
Page 7
Two Social Psychologists' Reflections on Situationism and the Criminal JusticeSystem
Page 7 of 36
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2014.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: MiamiUniversity - Ohio; date: 06 October 2014
Liberalswhoaremindfulofthesituationistmessagewouldlikelystresstheneedtoaddresstheclassicenvironmentalfactorsimplicatedincrime—forexample,childabuseandneglect,lackofeducationandjobopportunities,absenceofappropriaterolemodels,andmalignantpeergroupinfluences.Conservativeswhoappreciatethatsamelessonwouldbemorelikelytostresstheneedtostrengthentheinfluenceoffamily,church,school,andcommunity,andotherinstitutionsthatmightconstrainpotentialtransgressors.Behavioristsofallpoliticalpersuasionswouldemphasizetheimportanceofincentivestructuresandreinforcementcontingenciesthatrewardorpunishandthusencourageordiscourageparticularbehaviors.Andwhileallofuswouldreadilyconcedethedifficultiesofaccomplishingthekindofstructuralchangesinsocietythatwouldremedyeconomicorsocialinequalityofthesortthatisassociatedwithelevatedcrimerates,researchinsocialpsychologyprovidessomeevidencethatrelativelymodestinterventionscangoalongwayinaddressingoneofthemostobviousriskfactorsforcriminality—thatis,academicfailureandhighdrop-outrates.20
Butthisencouragingresearchevidencedoeslittletoadvancetheimmediategoalsofthecriminaljusticesystem,oneofwhichisensuringpublicsafety.Inconsideringwaystoaccomplishthatgoal,therelativeeffectivenessofthreatsofincarcerationversusothertypesofinterventionconstitutesanempiricalquestion—oneforwhichnosimpleanswerislikelytobeforthcoming.Whenapprehensionandpunishmentareperceivedascertain,crimeisclearlyoftendeterred.Whetherthethreatofharsh,22asopposedtobenign,conditionsheightensthedeterrentvalueofaprospectiveincarcerationtermismoredebatable.However,thehighrecidivismrateswecurrentlyobserveforparoleesbeliesanynotionthatthepresentpenalsystemisgenerallysuccessfulinproducingpositivechangeinprisoners'attitudesandvalues,intheircapacitiesforself-restraint,orinthecalculationstheymakeaboutthepotentialrisksversusbenefitsoffuturecriminalbehavior.23Moreover,highrecidivismrates(p.619) suggestthatthepressuresandconstraintsoftheenvironmentstowhichparoleesreturn,andthevariousburdensofstigmatization(includingthedifficultyoffindingdecentlypaidemployment),maybemoredeterminativeoffuturebehaviorthananypositivechangesproducedbyincarceration.
Oncewegrantthatwewouldchangethesituationalfactorsthatpromptcrimeifwecould(oratleastwheresuchchangeswerecost-justified),weareobligedtolookbeyondtheaccountabilityofthetransgressorsandconsiderourown.Tobeginwith,areasonablesocietysurelywouldplacetheburdenofproofandethicaljustificationonthosewhowouldarguethatinhumaneprisonconditionsbetterachievethegoalsofspecificandgeneraldeterrencethandomorehumaneones.24
Ifsociety'sgoalistohaveacriminaljusticesystemthatisnotonlyeffectivebutalsologicallyandethicallycoherent,additionalimplicationsofasituationistperspectivecometothefore.Onesuchimplicationwouldsurelybeamore“forgiving”responsetotransgressorswhohavebeensubjectedtounusuallystrongsituationalpressures,includingpressureswhosestrengthisunlikelytobeappreciatedbylayobserverswhohaveneverfacedthosepressures.Anotherimplication,wewouldargue,wouldbeagreaterwillingnesstomitigatepunishmentincaseswherethesituationalforcesthat
Page 8
Two Social Psychologists' Reflections on Situationism and the Criminal JusticeSystem
Page 8 of 36
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2014.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: MiamiUniversity - Ohio; date: 06 October 2014
weighedonthetransgressorswereonestowhichtheydidnotchoosetoexposethemselvesoroneswhoseimpacttheycouldnothaveanticipatedinadvance.Dysfunctionalfamilysituations,negativecommunitynormsandrolemodels,andlackofaccesstolawfulmeansofacquiringmoneysufficientforone'sbasicneeds(coupledwithtemptationsofunlawfulmeans)wouldclearlyfallunderthatcategory.25
Pragmaticconcernswouldalsoleadonetoconsiderthelikelihoodthatthesituationalfactorsthatpromptedtheactortocommittherelevant“badacts”wouldpresentthemselvestothatactoragaininthefuture.Transgressorswhohappenedtofindthemselvesinthewrongplaceatthewrongtime,orwhootherwisefacedunusualchallenges,wouldthusseemtomeritnotonlyourempathybutalsoourleniency,sincesuchactorswouldberelativelyunlikelytocommitfutureoffensesregardlessofwhetherornottheyweresubjectedtopunishment.Pragmaticconcernsregardingthelikelihoodofrecidivismthuscanclashwithconcernsofevenhandednessandfairness.Individualsalreadyadvantagedintermsoftheirpresentandprobablefuturelifesituationswhosuccumbtothepressuresandconstraintsofunusualcircumstanceswouldreceivemorelenienttreatmentthanthosealreadydisadvantagedintermsoftheirpastandlikelyfutureenvironments.
Inthiscontext,casesof“situation-specific”criminalbehaviorcometomind.AparticularlyprovocativecaseisthatofPatricia(“Patty”)Hearst.26Kidnapped(p.620) andsubjectedtoabusebyapoliticallymotivatedgroup,thisyoungwoman,whohadpreviouslyenjoyedalifeofgreatprivilege,wasinducedtojoinhercaptorsinseriouscrimes.Jurorswouldhavefounditdifficulttooverlookthefactthat,notwithstandingherinitialmisfortuneinbeingkidnapped,shelaterseemedtoparticipatewillinglyinseriouscrimesratherthanreturntoherfamily.Italsowouldhavebeenhardforthemtodenythat,butforanaccidentoffateinwhichshewasundeniablyavictim,her“character”wouldneverhavepromptedhertobecomeabankrobber.ButitwouldhavebeenequallyhardforthemtodenythatotherbankrobbersaresimilarlyvictimizedbylifecircumstancesandthatgiventhechancetoleadalifeasprivilegedasthatofPattyHearst,theywouldneverhaveresortedtocrimeandwouldrefrainquitereadilyfromdoingsointhefuture.Morecommoncasesofsituational-specificcriminalbehaviorthanthatofPattyHearst,includeonesinvolvingviolentactsbyseverelyabusedspouses,euthanasiabylovedones,orparentalwithholdingofnecessarymedicaltreatmentfromillchildrenbecauseofreligiousconvictions.27
Perhapsmoredifficulttograpplewiththanthoseexamplesarecasesinwhichmultipleandcontinuingchildhoodabusesconstitutethefirstlinksinacausalchainthatendswithadulttransgressions.ParticularlyproblematicarecasessuchasthoseofCaryStaynerorJohnLeeMalvo,forwhomboththeheinousnessoftheircrimesandthepowerofthesituationalinfluencestheyhadfacedseemuncontestable.28Butlessdramaticcasessimilarlyinvolvemisdeedsthatlikelywouldnothaveoccurredintheabsenceofunfortunateearlyexperiences,immediatepeerpressure,orparticularnormsendemictotheperpetrators'occupations,subcultures,orsocialsituations.Again,ourpointisnotthatthewrongdoersintheselessexceptionalcaseswerenotfreetoactotherwiseatthe
Page 9
Two Social Psychologists' Reflections on Situationism and the Criminal JusticeSystem
Page 9 of 36
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2014.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: MiamiUniversity - Ohio; date: 06 October 2014
momentoftheircrime.Indeed,manyactorsinsimilarsituations(andmanywhofacedevenmoredysfunctionalchildhoodenvironments)didactotherwise.Rather,itisthatthedeterminationof“just”treatmentinsuchcasesshouldbebasedonafuller,moresophisticatedappreciationofthepoweroftherelevantsituationalforces.
Casesinvolvingcriminalactscommittedinatimeofwarorintergroupconflictgiverisetosimilarlydifficultdilemmas.Towhatextentdoesasituationistperspectiveobligeonetooptforleniencyinthecaseofperpetratorsofgenocide,especiallythosewho(asistypicallythecase)leadunexceptionallivespriortofindingthemselvesrespondingtoexceptionalsituationalpressuresinexceptionaltimesandwho,whenpermittedtodoso,resumenormal,noncriminallivesafterwards?Contemporaryexamples,includingtheRwandagenocideperpetratedbyHutusagainstTutsis(Prunier,1995)andotherhorrendousinstancesofmurderandmayhemthathaveanobvioussociocultural(p.621) component,posethesamedilemmaastheholocaust.Theactionsoftheperpetratorsshocktheconscienceandcryoutforaccountability.29Yettheevidenceisoftenalltooclearthattherelevantmisdeedswerepromptedbyexceptionalcircumstancesofasortthatwouldhaveled,andinfactdidlead,many,perhapsevenmost,membersoftheirsocietytoactsimilarly.
Afinalcaseinpoint—alltoosalientatthismomentinhistory—isthatofterroristswhohavebeensubjectedtoalifetimeofhatefulpropagandaandsocialnorms,andwhoseexpressedmisgivings,ifany,weremetwithauthoritative,disapprovingpronouncementsfromtrustedsourcesaboutthewillofGod.Wemayfeeljustifiedinpunishingsuchindividualsharshlybecausetheirdeedsseemsoinherentlyeviltousandbecausewebelievethatharshpunishmentisnecessary,notonlytodeterfuturewould-beterroristsbutalsotosatisfytheoutrageofourcommunity.Butwecannotclaimingoodconsciencethattheterrorists'choices,whichpresumablyweretheproductofsomecombinationofheartfeltgrievances,culturallyprescribedunderstandings,religiousorpoliticalindoctrination,andvariouscompliancetechniquesskillfullyemployedbytheirhandlers,were“freely”made.30Wecannotclaimthatsuchchoiceswereasimplereflectionofbadcharacterorevildispositionsanymorethanwecouldmakesuchaclaimaboutactorswhocommittedtheircrimesatgunpointorinthefaceofgrievousthreatstotheirfamiliesorothercoerciveinfluences.
Thetensionbetweenthegoalofgeneraldeterrenceandthatofgivingappropriateweighttomitigatingcircumstancesshouldnowbeclear.Ononehand,theprospectofpunishmentrepresentsyetanothersituationalfeaturethatmayinfluencethebehaviorofpotentialtransgressors.Totheextentthatthepotentialoffenderisrationalandinformed,wecanreasonablyassumethatthemorecertaintheprescribedpunishmentis,thegreateritsdeterrentvaluewillbe(seeScodro,2005).Ontheotherhand,thefailuretomitigatepunishmentinlightofthepowerofthesituationalfactorsthatpromptedtheactor'sbehaviorseemstoviolateourlaynotionsoffairness.Itispreciselythisdilemmathatpromptsustocontrasttheperspectiveofthesocialpsychologiststeepedinthesituationisttraditionwiththoseofthelegalscholarandthelayperson.
Inassessingculpabilityandmakinginferencesabout“badcharacter,”thesocial
Page 10
Two Social Psychologists' Reflections on Situationism and the Criminal JusticeSystem
Page 10 of 36
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2014.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: MiamiUniversity - Ohio; date: 06 October 2014
psychologist(particularlythesocialpsychologistwhohasspentalifetimeconsideringtheproblemsandfindingsofattributiontheory)wouldbetemptedtoconsiderthedegreetowhichotheractorshaveprovedwillingandabletoresistthesituationalpressuresandconstraintsthattheoffenderfaced.Thelegalscholarorlayperson,bycontrast,wouldseektodistinguishbetweenresponsesfreelychosenbytheindividualactorandresponsesthatoccurred(p.622) withouttheactor'scapacitytoactotherwise,orwithouttheconsciousexerciseofchoiceatall.31
Acoupleofexamplesmayservetoclarifytherelevantdistinction.32Mostpeoplewouldbewillingtoconsiderevidenceofspousalabuse,oreventheimmediatefearofsuchabuse,inthecaseofacrimecommittedagainsttheabuser.Mostwouldalsobewillingtogiveweighttoevidenceofearlierparentalabusewhenevaluatingthemisdeedsofateenageoffender,despitethefactthatonlyasmallminorityofabusedspousesorabusedchildrengoontocommitsuchoffenses(seeWidom,1989).Wefurthersuspectthatneitherlaypeoplenorlegalscholarswouldtreatevidenceofastrongandmalignantpeergroupinfluenceasequallymitigating,eveniftheywerepresentedwithevidencethatthepercentageofindividualsintherelevantneighborhoodwhosuccumbedtosuchenvironmentalandpeergroupinfluencesbycommittingsomesimilarlyseriousoffensewasrelativelyhigh(seeMeares&Kahan,1998).
Ifthoseassumptionsarecorrect,thecriterionfordecidingwhethertheperpetratorofagivenactdeservesleniencyclearlyisnotbasedonacarefulempiricalassessmentofthedegreetowhichthemisdeedreflectedastatisticallyexceptionalresponsetotherelevantsituationalfactors.Rather,thehypotheticalexamplesweofferedabovesuggestthatleniencyispromptedbyfeelingsofsympathyorempathyfortheperpetrator,ratherthananobjectiveassessmentofthepotencyofthesituationalfactorinquestion,orevenoftheactor'sdeliberatenessandconsciousnessofchoice(whichisarguablygreatestinthechoiceofaspouse,lessinthechoiceofaneighborhoodorpeergroup,andleastinthechoiceofparents).
“Person-based”excusesposesimilarchallengestoanycoherenttheoryofjustice.Whileweareinclinedtodistinguishbehaviorreflectiveoftheactor'scharacter,temperament,inclination,or“dispositions”frombehaviorreflectiveoftheactor'ssituation,itwouldbeunreasonableforustoarguethatpeoplearesomehowmoreresponsibleforthegeneticallyandphysiologicallydeterminedaspectsoftheirdispositionsorcharacterthantheyareforwhateversituationalpressuresandconstraintstheyareunabletoovercome,orevenfortheresiduesofpriorexperiencesmanifestintheirpresentcharacter.Attributionresearchersstudylayviewsabouttherelativepotencyofpersonalandsituationaldeterminantsofbehavior,butanyconventionalpsychologicalanalysisproceedsfromthetruismthatbehaviorisnecessarilyaproductofboththepersonandthesituation,or,moreprecisely,theproductoftheinteractionbetweenperson-basedandsituation-basedcharacteristics.Theuseoftheterm“interaction”isinstructive.Itreflectstherecognitionthatthesamesituationmayhaveadifferenteffectonpeoplewithdifferinginbornphysiologicalcharacteristicsordifferingresidualeffectsofsimilarpriorexperiences.(p.623)
Page 11
Two Social Psychologists' Reflections on Situationism and the Criminal JusticeSystem
Page 11 of 36
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2014.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: MiamiUniversity - Ohio; date: 06 October 2014
Conversely,differentsituationsmayproducesimilarbehavioronthepartofdifferentindividuals.
Wewillconsidertheimplicationsofsuchaninteractionistperspectiveforlogicallycoherentassessmentsofculpability,forassignmentofappropriateweighttovarious“excuses”orclaimsofmitigatingcircumstances,andforotherissuesofcriminaljusticeintheconcludingsectionofthischapter.Beforeproceedingtothatdiscussion,however,wewouldliketodistinguishbetweentwooptionsoursocietyhasfordealingwithcriminaltransgressors.Inasense,wemustdecidewhether(oratleastwhen)toapplythenormsthatcharacteristicallygovernourdealingswithstrangers,asopposedtothenormsthatgenerallygovernourdealingswithfamilymembersorfriends.Theformersetofnormsentailstreatingpeopleaswefeeltheydeservetobetreated.Inthatcase,thenormofevenhandednessisparamountandweplacesignificantweightontheactor'sabilitytoanticipatetheconsequencesofhisorheractions.Thelattersetofnorms,bycontrast,entailstreatingpeopleinthemannerthatwouldbestservetheirindividualneeds.Inthatcase,weareapttotakeintoconsiderationpersonalcapacitiesandweaknesses,todeemphasizetheforeseeabilityofconsequencesandgivelittlethoughttoevenhandednessoftreatment,andinsteadsearchforpossiblewaystoachieverehabilitation.33
Ofcourse,eventhemostnurturingofparentsconsidersequityissueswhenbuyingbirthdaypresentsorassigninghouseholdchores.Butifsuchparentslearnthatoneoftheirchildrenseemstobethrivinginthepublicschoolenvironmentanddemandslittleattention,whereasanotherisdisruptive,unmotivated,andunabletomasterthethird-gradecurriculum,thoseparentsareapttoadoptchild-specificremedies.Inparticular,theymaytransferthelatterchildtoaschoolthatoffersstudentsmoreindividualattention,hireprivatetutors,urgeschoolofficialstocreatereinforcementcontingencies,andsolicitsupportoftrainedpersonnelwhowillbetterservetheirchild.Insodoing,theywillnotbedissuadedbycomplaintsthattheyaretreatingtheirchildrenunequally—thatis,complaintsthatthattheyarerewardingtheirwaywardchildforhisorherfailings,andinasense“punishing”theirwell-adaptedchildforhisorhersuccessesbykeepingthatchildintheless-than-stellarregularschool.
Adoptingasimilarlyperson-specificapproachtodealingwithcriminaltransgressors,however,isfraughtwithproblems.34First,sincetheregimenlikelytoworkbestforonetransgressormightnotbetheonelikelytoworkbestforanother,wemightoftenbeobligedtotreatdifferenttransgressorsdifferently,andwithunequaldegreesofharshness,forsimilarmisdeeds.Indeed,ifallwrongdoersweresubjectedtowhatevertreatmentweredeemedmostlikelytomaketheirbehaviorconformtothedictatesoflawandsociety,(p.624) therelativeharshnessofthepunishmentmightprovetobeuncorrelated,orevennegativelycorrelated,withourintuitiveassessmentsofhowmuchsympathy,empathy,orleniencythetransgressorsdeserve.
Mostpeoplesurelywouldbewilling—onbothconsequentialistandfairnessgrounds—tohavepeoplewhoaremerelypotentialtransgressorsreceivetreatmentthatwouldbeeffectiveinpreventingthemfromengaginginlatercriminalbehavior,especiallyifthe
Page 12
Two Social Psychologists' Reflections on Situationism and the Criminal JusticeSystem
Page 12 of 36
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2014.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: MiamiUniversity - Ohio; date: 06 October 2014
costsofsuchtreatmentweremodest.Furthermore,thefactthatthetreatmentrequiredtoproducelaw-abidingbehaviormightbedifferentfordifferentindividualswouldraisefewobjections.Thetreatmentmight,forexample,involvebiochemicalinterventionforsome,educationalorpsychiatricinterventionforothers,provisionofgoodrolemodelsforothers,andtheharshdisciplineofabootcampforstillothers.Bycontrast,afteracriminaloffensehasoccurred,evenwhentheoffenderisyoung,andevenwhentheoffenderisatleastsomewhatavictimofhisorhercircumstances,theissueoffairnessor“horizontalequity”(similartreatmentforsimilaroffenses)posesadifficultdilemma,onethatweaddressinthenextsectionofthischapter.
IV.PsychologicalVersusLegalReasoning:FairnessConsiderationsOurlegalsystemclearlydoesnottreatindividualsconvictedofthesamecrimeinauniformfashion.Inparticular,itdistinguishesbetweenjuvenileoffenders,whosecharactersandabilitiestocalculatetheimplicationsoftheiractionsarepresumedtonotyetbefullyformed,andadults,whosematurityinthoserespectsisassumedasamatteroflaw(seeScott,2000;Vining,2002).Thelawdrawssuchdistinctionsevenforcasesinwhichthenatureoftheadult'smisdeedsobviouslybeliessuchassumptions.Whendeterminingpunishmentfortransgressors,ourlegalsystemalsogivessomeweighttoextenuatingfactors.Inotherwords,evenwhenanindividualisjudgedtobeguiltyofacriminaloffense,itdistinguishesgood“excuses”frompoorones(seeHaney,2002).Thecogencyofsuchdistinctions,however,isanothermatter,aswenowshalldiscussingreaterdetail.
Evidenceofabraininjuryorofabiochemicalimbalance,wesubmit,wouldbetreatedbythelegalsystemasarelativelygoodexcuseforanassaultagainstpersonorproperty,largelybecausetheconditioninquestionwasneitherwillednorwelcomedbytheoffender.Thisexcusewouldbeespeciallygoodiftheinjuryorimbalanceoccurredjustpriortotheassault,andifnosimilaroffenseshadoccurredbeforetheoffendersufferedtheinjuryorimbalanceinquestion.Ifacriminalhadvoluntarilyingestedalcohol,amphetamines,or(p.625) otherdrugsjustpriortocommittingacrime,theresultingintoxicationwouldbetreatedasalesssatisfactoryexcuse,althoughitstillmightwintheoffendersomeleniencybecauseofthepresumeddiminishmentofvoluntarycontroloverbehaviororthecognitiveimpairmentthatmayhavemadethetransgressorunabletoformulatetherequisitementalstateforthecrime.Afarbetterbiochemicalexcuse,ontheotherhand,wouldbeoneinvolvingtheunanticipated(or“involuntary”)sideeffectsofapotentdrugprescribedbyaphysiciantotreatanongoingillnessortoalleviateaparticularsymptom,evenifsucheffectswererare.35
Various“situational”antecedentstoanoffensethatasocialpsychologistmightconsidertobeimportantproximatecausesofthatoffense,bycontrast,wouldbeunlikelytowintheoffenderanyleniency.Considertheexcusethattheoffender'sassaultagainstamemberofsomegrouphadbeenoccasionedbyaparticularlyeffectiveincendiaryspeechagainstthegroupinquestion—perhapsevenaspeechtowhichthelistenerhadbeenexposedbyhappenstanceorforceratherthanchoice.Orconsidertheexcusethataparticularoffenderhadbeentauntedbyapeerwhoquestionedhiscourage,or
Page 13
Two Social Psychologists' Reflections on Situationism and the Criminal JusticeSystem
Page 13 of 36
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2014.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: MiamiUniversity - Ohio; date: 06 October 2014
challengedbytherespectedleaderofheractivistgrouptoprovethedepthofherdedicationtotheirsharedcause.
Wehavenoevidencetociteforthefailureof“situationalexcuses”inthetypesofcasesnotedabove.Indeed,iftherelevantprecipitantstoactionwereintroducedinacriminaltrial,itmightverywellbebytheprosecution,inanefforttoexplainthedefendant's“motive.”Nevertheless,wetrustthatlaypeopleandexpertsalikewouldagreethatappealstothepowerofthesocialsituationinsuchinstances(asopposedtoahistoryofabusecoupledwiththepresenceorimmediatethreatofsuchabuse)wouldbefutile,36andthatneitherstatisticalevidencenorexperttestimonyaboutthedegreetowhich“similarlysituated”individualswouldhavebehavedsimilarlywouldresultinleniencyforthedefendant.Theonlyevidencethatfact-finderswouldlikelyfindexculpatorywouldbeevidenceshowingthatthedefendantfailedtoformtherequisitementalstateforthecrimeorsomehowlackedtheabilitytoactotherwise.37
Certainly,fact-findersdoconsidersomeexcusesinvolvingsituationalfactors.“Crimesofpassion”occasionedbythediscoveryofinfidelityorotherinsultstohonor,providedthattheyarecommittedinthe“heatofthemoment,”aregenerallytreatedwithsomeleniency.38Asnotedabove,excusesinvolvingpriorabusebyaparentorspousecarrysimilarweight,especiallyiftheoffenderisyoungandtheeffectsofthatabuseareevidentfromtheoffender'slackofsocialadjustment.Butconsiderthelikelysuccessoftheexcusethatanoffender'sparentswerelaxindiscipline,overlyindulgent,orpoorrole(p.626) models.Wesubmitthattheintroductionofsuch“extenuating”factorswouldbedismissedasirrelevantandeventreatedwithscorn.39Moreover,experttestimonythatatleastsomechildrenrespondverybadlytoindulgentorlaissez-faireparenting(seeKochanska,Forman,Aksan,&Dunbar,2005)woulddolittletoimprovethedefendant'sprospects.
Otherexcusesthatdefendantshaveoffered,withvaryingdegreesofsuccess,inseekingdismissalofchargesormorelenienttreatmentincludetheeffectsofjunkfood,sleepdeprivation,societalracism,hormonaldisturbance,andawiderangeofclinicalabnormalities.40Criticsofourlegalsystem,includingsomelegalscholars,havebeenquicktoridiculemanyoftheseexcuses(see,e.g.,Dershowitz,1994;Morse,1995),andtocallforareassertionoftheprincipleofpersonalaccountability.41Moresympatheticlegalscholarshavetriedtoexplainandjustifythebasisfordistinguishingbetweenlegitimateandillegitimateexcuses.Inparticular,theyseektodistinguishbetweencasesinwhichthedefendantwaslegallyandmorallyaccountablefromcasesinwhichlackofcapacityor“freewill”diminishedoreliminatedsuchaccountability.42Toacademicallytrainedsocialpsychologists,however,thedistinctionsmadebetweengood“excuses”andbadonesseemdubious—aproductlessofanycoherentanalysisortheoryofpersonalagencythanofthefactorsthatinspirefeelingsofsympathyorempathy.Mostimportantly,claimsabouttheroleof“freewill”relyonadualistconceptionofmindandbody(whereinwill,asopposedtomotiveorattention,isnotreducibletoaphysiologicaland/orcognitiveprocesswithinthebrainandbody)thatmostpsychologistswouldregardaslittlebetterthanhand-waving.43
Page 14
Two Social Psychologists' Reflections on Situationism and the Criminal JusticeSystem
Page 14 of 36
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2014.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: MiamiUniversity - Ohio; date: 06 October 2014
Letustrytomakesenseof,oratleastdescribeingreaterdetail,someofthelayandlegalnotionsinquestion.Ingeneral,itappearsthatwhereonecanbothspecifythenatureofthemalignantcausalagentorfactorandshow,orreasonablypostulate,adirectlinkfromthatagentorfactortothetransgressionsinquestion,theexcuseistypicallydeemedtobeagoodone—especiallyiftheactordidnotchoosetoexposehimselftothatfactor.Bycontrast,ifonecannotarticulatetheparticularcausalprocessesoratleastthechainofeventsthatledtoaparticulardeed—evenwheretheactorissimilarlyinnocentofhavingchosentoexposehimselftotheinitiallinksinthatchain—thedeedisattributedtofreewillandtheindividualisheldaccountable.
Considerourpreviousexampleofanabusedchildwholaterbecomesanabuserhimself.Mostpeoplemaybequitewillingtoconsidersuchpriorabusetobeafactorthatcontributedtothecrimeandmanywouldconsiderleniencyonthatbasis.But,asnotedearlier,ifasecondpersonwhohadneverbeenabused,buthadbeenconsistentlyspoiledandneversubjectedtoreasonableparentaldiscipline,weretocommitthesameoffense,pleasfor(p.627) leniencywouldlikelyfallondeafears.Atfirst,thedistinctionseemsreasonable,oratleastinaccordwithoursympathies.However,themoredeeplyweexaminethecausesofanyspecificaction—thatis,themorethoroughlyweexploretheinteractionsofsituationsandactorsinmakingagivenresponselikelyorunlikelytooccur—themoreproblematicthebasisforthatdistinctionbecomes.
Researchsuggeststhatsomechildrenpossessageneticmakeupthathelpsthemcopewithabusewithoutbecomingabusers,whileotherchildrenlacksuchgeneticallybased“hardiness”(seeCaspietal.,2002).Scientistsmaysoondiscoverthespecificgenesorthespecificprenatalorearlypostnatalexperiencesthatplayaroleinmediatingvulnerabilityandhardinessinthefaceofvariousothertypesofpotentiallypathogenicenvironments.Shouldsuchadiscoverypromptustostartpunishingcertaintransgressorslessharshly?Shouldthe“spoiledrichkid”whoselawyerofferslackofparentaldisciplineasanexcuseforthewhite-collarcrimeshehascommittedasanadultbetreatedwithgreatersympathyandshownmoreleniencybecausesomescientisthassucceededinidentifyingthespecificgeneticfactorthatmakesparticularchildrenvulnerabletolackofparentaldiscipline?Supposewehavegoodstatisticalevidencefromtwinstudiesfortheroleofgeneticfactorsinproducingsuchvulnerabilitybutscientistshavenotsucceededinisolatingandidentifyingthespecificgeneticmarkers?Shouldourwillingnesstoshowleniencyreallydependontheprogressofscientistsindiscoveringspecificgeneticunderpinnings?
Scientistsarebeginningtodiscoverthegenetic44orearlyexperientialfactorsandtheircognitiveandphysiologicalresidues45thatcanbelinkedstatisticallytoahostofotheradolescentandadultpathologiesandadjustmentproblems.Mostofthiswork,however,doesnotconclusivelyidentifytheexactlinksbetweentherelevantcausalfactorsandthedeviantorcriminalactswithwhichtheyhavebeenassociated.Decadesofresearchleavelittledoubtthattheseassociationsareapttoincludecomplexinteractioneffects,inwhichmuchofthevariabilityinoutcomeswillremainunexplained.Thatis,notallindividualspossessingthegeneticmarkerwillmanifesttheproblemandnotallindividualsmanifesting
Page 15
Two Social Psychologists' Reflections on Situationism and the Criminal JusticeSystem
Page 15 of 36
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2014.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: MiamiUniversity - Ohio; date: 06 October 2014
theproblemwillshowthatparticularmarker.
Inalllikelihood,sometermreflectingsuchunexplainedvarianceorrandomness(whichinturncanbeseenasthevariabilityaccountedforbyasofyetunspecifiedfactorsandinteractionsbetweenthosefactors)willstillhavetobeincludedinanypredictionequation.Shouldthecomplexityofthepredictionequationorthesizeoftheerrortermsforunexplainedvarianceinthatequationreallydetermineourreceptivenesstotherelevantmitigationclaim?Shouldthedegreeofspecificityorcomplexityintherelevantprediction(p.628) equationreallyplayaroleinourdecisionsabouttheethicaljustificationformetingoutharshpunishmenttothosewho“freely”choosetodowronginlightofageneticmakeupandearlyparentalenvironmentthattheyobviouslydidnot“freely”choose?
Letussuppose,forthesakeofargument,thatwedoultimatelydiscovertheexactgenetic(orotherphysiological)basisforabnormallevelsofaggression,emotionalliability,poorimpulsecontrol,lowsocialintelligence,poordecision-makingability,orotherriskfactorsintemperamentandcapacitythatarelinkedtocriminalbehavior.Suppose,infact,wecometounderstandfullythebiologicalandexperientialbasisforpsychopathy,thediagnosiswenowusetoexplainactionssoinherentlyevilandfreeofconcernforthevictimthattheydefyourcomprehensionandcapacityforempathyandfuelasenseofmoraloutragethatcriesoutforharshpunishment.Inthefaceofsuchadiscovery,wouldwe,andshouldwe,thentreattherelevantoffendersmoreleniently,withanemphasisontherapy—perhapsevengene-alteringtherapy—ratherthanonpunishment?Ifso,fromwhomshouldwewithholdsuchleniency?Shouldwepunishthoseforwhomourtherapyprovesineffective,orthoseforwhomitprovestobe“toolittleandtoolate”?Andhowshouldwetreatthosepossessingthese“badgenes”incomparisontothevictimsofparticularexperientialmisfortunesorincomparisontoindividualsforwhomsuchbiologicalandexperientialfactorshappentohaveinteractedinarare,unpredictable,buthighlyunfortunatemanner?
Theremaybenoentirelysatisfactoryanswertosuchhypotheticalquestions,andwemayneverhavetoanswerthem.Butinstrikingabalanceamongthegoalsofdeterrence,retribution,remediation,andwhateverothergoalsthecriminaljusticesystemisdesignedtoserve,itseemsneitherlogicallydefensiblenorfairtomakethebalancedependsoheavilyonlayintuitionsthatweknowfromscoresofresearchstudiestobefaultyandsusceptibletobiases.Policiesandpracticesinevitablywilldependontheamountofprogressthatwehavemadeinprovidingamorescientificallysatisfactoryunderstandingofcriminalbehaviorandoursuccessineducatinglegaltheorists,legislators,andthebodypoliticaboutthatprogress.
Beyondcallingforamoreaccurateviewofhowdispositionalandsituationalfactorsinteractinproducingbehavior,weultimatelymustaddresshead-ontheveryconceptof“freewill.”46Philosophers,laypeople,andlegalscholarsalikeareapttosidesteptheissueoffreewillandcontentthemselveswithaskingwhethertheactorintendedhisorheractionandintended,orperhapsactedwithoutconcernsfor,itsconsequences.Casesinwhichthetransgressor'sactionsclearlyreflectapreternaturallystrong(andpresumably
Page 16
Two Social Psychologists' Reflections on Situationism and the Criminal JusticeSystem
Page 16 of 36
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2014.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: MiamiUniversity - Ohio; date: 06 October 2014
biologicallydetermined)47inclinationraiseaparticularlyvexingproblem.(p.629)
Whatisajustresponsetosomeonewhopossessesandrespondstosuchyearnings?Whatifoneperson'sdesiretouseaparticulardrug,oreventomolestachildinhiscare,isasstrongatthemomentitisacteduponasistheaverageperson'sneedanddesireforfoodwhenhungry,orforsleepwhentired,orevenforairwhendeprivedofoxygen?Wesuspectthatthewrongdoersinquestionwoulddenythatthey“willed”tohavesuchneedsordesires.Theycouldalsocrediblyclaimthattheywishthatneedsanddesiresincompatiblewiththeirmisdeeds(needsandwishesthathadheldswayinothersituations)hadpreventedthosemisdeedsinthespecificsituationsinwhichtheyactedwrongly.Suchadefense,wesuspect,wouldfallondeafears.
Leavingasidesuchspeculationsaboutdeliberateactsthatreflecttherelativestrengthofcompetingmotives,wecanaskabouttwoothertypesofwrongfulacts.Whatiftheprocessesthatleadaparticularactortocommitaparticularcrimeareessentiallyfreeofcoolcalculationofconsequences,inparticular,asfreeofsuchrationalcalculationofharmtoothersastheprocessesthatmightleadanordinarydrivertoveerhercarontoacrowdedsidewalktoavoidacollision?Andwhatifthemotivesthatprompttheoffendertocommithisorheroffenseareasstrongasthemotivesthatleadabankemployeetoaccedetoanarmedthief'sdemandthatsheopenthesafeortieupafellowvictim?
Inthecaseofthedriverwhoveersintoacrowdorthebankemployeewhocooperateswitharobber,theextenuatingcircumstancewouldinalllikelihoodprecludepunishment.Wesubmitthatourleniencyinbothcaseswouldreflectourabilitytoempathize.Inbothinstancesweknowthatwe,andpeoplewhoweloveandrespect,mightactsimilarlyiftheyfacedthesamesetofcircumstances.Bycontrast,fewofuswouldempathizewiththeaddict'scravingsfordrugs,andfewerstillwouldbeabletoempathizewiththecravingsofmolester.Butshouldthefactthatwedonotsharesuchcravings—andcannotevenimaginesharingthem—makeusdoubttheirpower,ordissuadeusfromfavoringleniencyonceweacknowledgehowpowerfultheyareforthemolesteroraddict?Morespecifically,shouldourabilityorinabilitytorealizethatwemightcommitsimilaractsinthefaceofsimilarlystrongcravingsenterintothecalculuswhenweweightheappropriatenessofpunishmentversustherapeutictreatment?
Imaginethatthroughsurgery,orbyusingsomedrugorbehaviormodificationprogram,wecoulddramaticallyweakenthepotentialmolester'sdesiretomolestorstrengthenhisorhercapacitytoexerciseself-restraint.Surelyallofuswouldapproveofsuchatreatment.Manyofuswouldevenbewillingtoforgo(oratleastmitigate)punishmenttherelevantcrimehasalreadybeencommittedprovidedthatwecouldnowachievealastingcure.Ifso,anobviousquestionarises:Towhatextentshouldourcurrentlackof(p.630) suchmeansofpreventionorcurejustifythewithholdingofsympathyandleniency?
Imagineagainthatscientistssuddenlydiscoveraprenatalorearlypostnatalinterventionthatwouldeliminateanidentifiableriskfactorforthedevelopmentofpsychopathyinthesamewaythatwecannoweliminatetheriskofmentalretardationandother
Page 17
Two Social Psychologists' Reflections on Situationism and the Criminal JusticeSystem
Page 17 of 36
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2014.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: MiamiUniversity - Ohio; date: 06 October 2014
manifestationsofPKU48throughearlyidentificationandtreatmentofnewborns.Shouldthefailureofparentstoprovidethatinterventionconstituteamitigatingfactorwhentheadolescentcommitsatypicallypsychopathiccrime?Shouldthosewhocommitasimilarpsychopathiccrimebutweredeniedsuchprenataltreatmentsimplybecausetherelevantdiscoverycametoolateforittobeadministeredbeabletomakeasimilarpleaforleniency?Shouldtheabsenceofsuchatreatmentnow,coupledwithknowledgeofwhatsuchatreatmentmightlooklikeifwecouldsolveparticulartechnicalproblems,providethebasisforaclaimnow?Questionsbasedonsuchcounterfactualsaredifficult,anditisnotsurprisingthatlegalscholarsandpractitionersgenerallyhavenotchosentoaddressthem.Butthe“slipperyslope”theypresentshouldbetroublingtoanyonewhomightbeinclinedtoconsiderleniencyinsomebutnotallofthehypotheticalcaseswithwhichwehaveburdenedthereader.
Contemporarypsychologycannotprovidefullysatisfyinganswerstothequestionsofwhenandwhyparticularactorscommitparticularcrimes.Norcanitprovidereliableremediestopreventcrimesandreformcriminals.Intime,wemaymakeprogressonbothfronts.Butitisimportantnottolosesightofthetruismthatpsychologywouldpromptustobringtoouranalytictask.Theexplanationforallmisdeeds(liketheexplanationforallbehavior)canbestated,atleastintheabstract,intermsthatrecognizetheroleofmotives,needsordesires,andevenintentions,withoutreferenceto“will.”Werarely,ifever,canspecifyexactlyhowandwhyagivensituationorexperience,alongwiththeresidueofvariouspastexperiences,hasproducedaparticularresponseinaparticularindividualwithaparticularmindandbody—bothofwhich,ofcourse,arethemselvessimilarlytheproductofsomecombinationofgenetics,physiologicalprocesses,andexperience.Nevertheless,wemustpresumethatsuchan“interaction”betweenthefactorsinquestionhasoccurred.Decidinghowtoaddthenotionofpersonalresponsibilityor“willfulness”toanysuchaccountthusbecomesmoreamatterofculturalconvention(andasourceofjustificationforthewaywehappentotreatparticularclassesofoffenders)thantheproductofsomecoherentorlogicalanalysisaddressingtherelativeimpactofbehavioraldeterminants.
Psychologistsarenotaloneintryingtosidesteptheissueofaccountabilityorfreewillinaccountingforantisocialorcriminalbehavior.(p.631) Schopenhauer(1839/1960)observedmorethanacenturyandahalfagothatmancandowhathewills,butthathecannotwillwhathewills.Nor,wewouldadd,canman“will”howstronglyandirresistiblyhewillsordesiresit,orhowstrongandsuccessfulhiswilltoresistthatwillordesiremightprovetobe.
PhilosopherscontinuetodebateSchopenhauer'sfamouschallengetothenotionoffreewill,butanysocietyorlegalsystemthatattemptstopursuejusticeinthetreatmentoftransgressorscannotescapethefactthatallbehavioriscausedbythestructuresofbodyandmind,byimmediateexperience,bytheresidueofordinaryandextraordinarypastexperience,andbythewaythesefactorshappentointeractineachindividualcase.Thenatureofthisinteractionremainsbeyondourlimitedabilitytopredictandcontrol.Butpostulatingaselfthatissomehowindependentofgeneticendowment,early
Page 18
Two Social Psychologists' Reflections on Situationism and the Criminal JusticeSystem
Page 18 of 36
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2014.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: MiamiUniversity - Ohio; date: 06 October 2014
experience,orsocialcontext,aselfthatexercises“freewill”inbendingto,resisting,oralteringthevarioussituationalpressuresandconstraintsthatdeterminebehaviordoeslittletoimproveourefforts.Suchanexerciseindualismmayquietourmisgivingsindispensingpunishment,butitdoeslittletoimprovethequalityofthejusticewedispenseortojustifythevagariesandcrueltiesofourpenalsystem.
Thereisroomtodisputetheconventionalpsychologicalaccountofthefactorscontrollinghumanbehaviorthatwehaveofferedhere.Thereisevenmoreroomtodisputeourcontentionsabouttheepistemicstatusoffreewill.Indeed,the“compatibilists”inphilosophyandotherdisciplines(seeBok,1998;Fischer&Ravizza,1999;Mele,1995)havelaboredtocomeupwithadefinitionoffreewillandbehavioralaccountsthatarenondeterministicandmaysatisfythosewhoseekacoherentbasisforassessingculpabilityandpunishment.Butthebehavioralanalysisofferedbypsychologyatleastobligesdefendersofthecontemporarycriminaljusticesystemtobemoremodestintheirclaimstobedispensingjustice.Legalscholars,jurors,andjudges—indeedallofus—recognizethelimitsofourabilityto“willwhatwewill.”Butthey,andwe,areneverthelessalltoowillingtoinsistthatothersoughttobeabletowillwhattheywill,orinanycase,thatothersoughttofaceharshconsequencesfornotbeingabletodoso.
V.PragmaticConsiderationsVersusConsiderationsofJusticeWhiletheremaybenologicallysatisfyingresolutiontotheproblemsofdistinguishinggoodfrombadexcusesandjustlydecidingwhichoffendersmeritlenienttreatment,thereisnodenyingthatpunishmentdoesserveobvioussocietalfunctions.Potentialoffendersrespondnotonlytoperceivedcontingencies(p.632) andlikelyconsequencesofpunishmentbutalsototheperceivedsocietalnormsandvaluescommunicatedbyourlawsandsanctions.Inlightofthatrealityandoftheproblemsofjusttreatmentthatwehavediscussedhere,areasonablestancewouldbetoadmitthatoursocietyemployscriminalsanctionsnottodispensejusticepersebuttocontrolhumanbehavior,especiallybehaviorthatwedeemdangerousoroffensivetoourindividualorcollectivewell-being.
Whenweknowhowtoendparticulartransgressionsonthepartofparticularindividualsthroughmedicalorpsychiatricintervention,throughcounselingoreducation,orthroughotherformsofrehabilitation,weshouldnothesitatetodoso,anymorethanweshoulddenytreatmenttoindividualswhoseantisocialbehaviorcanbetracedtopurelymedicalmaladiesortraumas.Whenwedonotknowhowtoachievesuchcontrolthroughmorebenigntreatmentofoffenders,wemusttakeituponourselvestoimposeeffectivesanctions,toisolatetheoffendersfromthepeopletheycouldharm,ortootherwiselimittheirfreedominordertoreducetherelevantrisk.49
Whatismoredifficulttojustify,ofcourse,isretribution—thatis,inflictingsufferingbecausewefeelthattheoffenderdeservestosuffer—ratherthandeterrence,socialsignaling,orotheraspectsofsocialcontrol.50Wisdomandconcernforfairnessalikedictatethatwetreatoffendersashumanelyasisconsistentwithachievingthetypeanddegreeofcontrolthatoursocietydeemsnecessaryandappropriate.Indeed,onecouldreasonablyarguethatweshouldtreatoffendersaswewouldtreatsomeonewhosuffersacurrentlyuntreatablecommunicabledisease.Thatis,suchindividualsshouldbe
Page 19
Two Social Psychologists' Reflections on Situationism and the Criminal JusticeSystem
Page 19 of 36
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2014.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: MiamiUniversity - Ohio; date: 06 October 2014
deprivedofthenormalcomfortsoflibertyonlytotheextentthat,andonlyaslongas,itisnecessarytodosotoprotectbothourselves,andthem,fromsocialharmsthatthemembersofoursocietycollectivelyagreetobeappropriate.51
Apairofrelatedobjectionscouldberaisedtotheprescriptionimpliedabove.First,itcouldreasonablybearguedthatthecriminaljusticesystemshouldreflectthesentimentsandbeliefsaboutbotheffectivenessandfairnessthatthepeopleservedbythatsystemholdratherthantheabstractconceptionsofacademicpsychologists—evenifthoselayviewshappentobelogicallyand/orempiricallymisguided.Itcouldfurtherbearguedthatconformitytothecitizenry'scurrentviewsaboutwhytransgressorsbehavethewaytheydoandtheappropriatesanctionsformisbehaviorisnecessaryinorderforthecriminaljusticesystemtoachieveoneofitsothercommonlycitedfunctions—namely,providingsocietyingeneral,andvictimsofcrimeinparticular,thesenseofjustretributionthatisrequiredforthemtoforgothe“self-help”optionofindividualvengeance.
Ourownanswertosuchclaimscanbeanticipatedfromthecontentoftheargumentsandobservationswehaveofferedhere.Whiletheworkingsofthe(p.633) criminaljusticesystemshouldrespecttheviewsthatmembersofsocietyhaveaboutresponsibilityandjustice,weshoulddowhatwecantoeducatelegislators,legalscholars,andlaypeopleaboutthelessonsprovidedbytheharddataofempiricalpsychology.Morespecifically,treatmentofoffendersshouldnotcontinuetobeguidedbyillusionsaboutcross-situationalconsistencyinbehavior,erroneousnotionsabouttheimpactofdispositionsversussituationsinguidingbehavior,orfailurestothinkthroughthelogicof“person/situation”interactions.Norshouldtheybeguidedbycomfortingbutnotdeeplyconsiderednotionsoffreewillanymorethantheyshouldbeguidedbyoncecommonbutnowabandonednotionsaboutwitchcraft,demonicpossession,orunbalanced“humors.”
Itisworthnotingthatthescienceandpracticeofmedicinetakeadvantageofnewdiscoveriesaboutthefailingsofmindandbodywithoutwaitingtoeducatethelaypublic,muchlesswaitingforsucheducationtotakefulleffect,beforeitadjustsitsmodesoftreatment.Arguably,legaltheoryandpracticeshoulddomoretotakesimilaradvantageofadvancingbehavioralscienceknowledge;although,twocaveatsareinorder.First,thelegalsystem,farmorethanthemedicalsystem,derivesitslegitimacyfrompublicassent.Second,giventhemodesteffectivenessofmostofouravailable“treatments”forthepersonalandsocialillsthatpromptcriminalbehavior,ourexhortationsandrecommendationsshouldbeofferedwithacommensuratedegreeofmodesty.
Societyhasbeenobligedtotreatpunishmentasawaybothtoexercisesocialcontrolandtosatisfyourcollectivesensethatthosepunisheddeservetheirfateandthatjusticehasbeendone,inpartbecausewelackthemeansandtheknowledgerequiredtopursuebetteroptions.Thatwecannotachievethoselegitimateendswithoutimposingsufferingandlossoflibertyonindividualswhoareinarealsensethemselvesvictimsofbadfortune—inthebodiesandmindstheyinheritedandinthesituationsthatalteredthosemindsandbodiesinproducingtheirmisdeeds—shouldbeasourceofhumilityand
Page 20
Two Social Psychologists' Reflections on Situationism and the Criminal JusticeSystem
Page 20 of 36
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2014.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: MiamiUniversity - Ohio; date: 06 October 2014
regret.Self-righteousinsistencethatthewrongdoersmustfully“pay”fortheirtransgressionsandnotbe“coddled”iswarrantedneitherbythedictatesoffairnessnorbydeeperanalysisofthedeterminantsofhumanbehavior.
Notes
Reference
Bibliographyreferences:
Arenella,P.(1992).Convictingthemorallyblameless:Reassessingtherelationshipbetweenlegalandmoralaccountability.UCLALawReview,39,1511–622.
Arenella,P.(1996).Demystifyingtheabuseexcuse:Isthereone?HarvardJournalofLaw&PublicPolicy,19,703–709.
Asch,S.E.(1951).Effectsofgrouppressureuponthemodificationanddistortionofjudgments.InH.Guetzkow(Ed.),Groups,leadership,andmen(pp.177–90).Pittsburgh:CarnegiePress.
Asch,S.E.(1955).Opinionsandsocialpressure.ScientificAmerican,193,31–35.
Asch,S.(1956).Studiesofindependenceandconformity:Aminorityofoneagainstaunanimousmajority.PsychologicalMonographs,70(9),1–70.
Atran,S.(2003).Genesisofsuicideterrorism.Science,299,1534–39.
Bersoff,D.N.(2002).Somecontrarianconcernsaboutlaw,psychology,andpublicpolicy.LawandHumanBehavior,26,565–74.
Bok,H.(1998).Freedomandresponsibility.Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress.
Caspi,A.,McClay,J.,Moffitt,T.E.,Mill,J.,Martin,J.,Craig,I.W.,Taylor,A.,&Poulton,R.(2002).Roleofgenotypeinthecycleofviolenceinmaltreatedchildren.Science,297,851–54.
Chen,R.,&Hanson,J.(2004).Categoricallybiased:Theinfluenceofknowledgestructuresonlawandlegaltheory.CaliforniaLawReview,77,1103–254.
Colemanv.Schwarzenegger(2009).2009WL330960(E.D.Cal.).
Darley,J.M.,&Latané,B.(1968).Bystanderinterventioninemergencies:Diffusionofresponsibility.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,8,377–83.
Darley,J.M.,&Pittman,T.S.(2003).Thepsychologyofcompensatoryandretributivejustice.PersonalityandSocialPsychologyReview,7,324–36.
Dershowitz,A.M.(1994).Theabuseexcuse:Andothercop-outs,sobstories,and
Page 21
Two Social Psychologists' Reflections on Situationism and the Criminal JusticeSystem
Page 21 of 36
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2014.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: MiamiUniversity - Ohio; date: 06 October 2014
evasionsofresponsibility.Boston:Little,Brown.
Doob,A.N.,&Webster,C.M.(2003).Sentenceseverityandcrime:Acceptingthenullhypothesis.Crime&Justice,30,143–91.
Dressler,J.(2006).Understandingcriminallaw(4thEd.).SanFrancisco:MatthewBender.
Driessen,M.A.,&Durham,W.C.Jr.(2002).SentencingdissonancesintheUnitedStates:Theshrinkingdistancebetweenpunishmentproposedandsanctionserved.AmericanJournalofComparativeLaw,50,623–41.
Ehrlinger,J.,Gilovich,T.,&Ross,L.(2005).Peeringintothebiasblindspot:People'sassessmentsofbiasinthemselvesandothers.PersonalityandSocialPsychologyBulletin,31,680–92.
Fischer,J.M.,&Ravizza,M.(1999).Responsibilityandcontrol:Atheoryofmoralresponsibility.Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Forde-Mazrui,K.(2004).Takingconservativesseriously:Amoraljustificationforaffirmativeactionandreparations.CaliforniaLawReview,92,683–753.
Freedman,J.L.,&Fraser,S.C.(1966).Compliancewithoutpressure:Thefoot-in-the-doortechnique.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,4,196–202.
Gabler,M.,Stern,S.E.,&Miserandino,M.(1998).LatinAmerican,Asian,andAmericanculturaldifferencesinperceptionsofspousalabuse.PsychologicalReports,83,587–92.
Garvey,S.P.(1998).Aggravationandmitigationincapitalcases:Whatdojurorsthink?ColumbiaLawReview,98,1538–76.
Gottfredson,D.(1999).Effectsofjudges'sentencingdecisionsoncriminalcareers.Washington,DC:DepartmentofJustice,OfficeofJusticePrograms,NationalInstituteofJustice.
Haney,C.(1998).Mitigationandthestudyoflives:Ontherootsofviolentcriminalityandthenatureofcapitaljustice.InJ.R.Acker,R.Bohm,&C.S.Lanier(Eds.),America'sexperimentwithcapitalpunishment:Reflectionsonthepast,present,andfutureoftheultimatepenalsanction(pp.351–84).Durham,NC:CarolinaAcademicPress.
Haney,C.(2002).Makinglawmodern:Towardacontextualmodelofjustice.Psychology,PublicPolicy,&Law,8,3–63.
Hartshorne,H.,&May,M.A.(1928).Studiesinthenatureofcharacter:I.Studiesindeceit.NewYork:Macmillan.
Ichheiser,G.(1949).Misunderstandingsinhumanrelations:Astudyinfalsesocialperception.AmericanJournalofSociology,55(Suppl.).
Page 22
Two Social Psychologists' Reflections on Situationism and the Criminal JusticeSystem
Page 22 of 36
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2014.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: MiamiUniversity - Ohio; date: 06 October 2014
Kagan,J.(2007).Atrioofpsychologicalconcerns.PerspectivesonPsychologicalScience.2,362–76.
Kahan,D.(1997).Betweeneconomicsandsociology:Thenewpathofdeterrence.MichiganLawReview,95,2477–97.
Kassin,S.M.,&Kiechel,K.L.(1996).Thesocialpsychologyoffalseconfessions:Compliance,internalization,andconfabulation.PsychologicalScience,7,125–28.
Kassin,S.M.,&Sukel,H.(1997).Coercedconfessionsandthejury:Anexperimentaltestofthe‘harmlesserror’rule.LawandHumanBehavior,21,27–46.
Kaye,A.(2005).Resurrectingthecausaltheoryoftheexcuses.NebraskaLawReview,83,1116–77.
Kirchmeier,J.L.(2004).Atearintheeyeofthelaw:Mitigatingfactorsandtheprogressiontowardadiseasetheoryofcriminaljustice.OregonLawReview,83,631–730.
Kochanska,G.,Forman,D.R.,Aksan,N.,&Dunbar,S.B.(2005).Pathwaystoconscience:Earlymother-childmutuallyresponsiveorientationandchildren'smoralemotion,conduct,andcognition.JournalofChildPsychologyandPsychiatry,46,19–34.
Lakoff,G.(1996).Moralpolitics:Whatconservativesunderstandthatliberalsdon't.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.
LaFave,W.R.,&Scott,A.W.(1986).CriminalLaw(2ndEd.).StPaul:WestPublishing.
Lamparello,A.(2001).TakingGodoutofthehospital:Requiringparentstoseekmedicalcarefortheirchildrenregardlessofreligiousbelief.TexasForumonCivilLiberties&CivilRights,6,47–115.
Latané,B.,&Darley,J.M.(1968).Groupinhibitionofbystanderinterventioninemergencies.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,10,215–21.
Lutz,C.,&Elliston,J.(2002,October14).Domesticterror:Whenseveralsoldierskilledtheirwives,anoldproblemwassuddenlynews.TheNation,p.18.
Malle,B.F.(1997).People'sfolktheoryofbehavior.InM.G.Shafto&P.Langley(Eds.),ProceedingsofthenineteenthannualconferenceoftheCognitiveScienceSociety(pp.478–83).Mahway,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum.
Mariscal,R.(2003,February19).ExecutiveDirector,CriminalJusticeCounselofSantaCruzCounty,personalcommunication.
MassachusettsMutualLifeInsuranceCo.v.Woodal(2003).304F.Supp.2d1364(S.D.Ga.).
Page 23
Two Social Psychologists' Reflections on Situationism and the Criminal JusticeSystem
Page 23 of 36
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2014.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: MiamiUniversity - Ohio; date: 06 October 2014
Markus,H.R.,&Kitayama,S.(1991).Cultureandtheself:Implicationsforcognition,emotionandmotivation.PsychologicalReview,98,224–53.
Martin,S.P.(2005).Theradicalnecessitydefense.UniversityofCincinnatiLawReview,73,1527–607.
Masters,R.D.(1997).Environmentalpollutionandcrime.VermontLawReview,22,359–82.
Mather,V.M.(1988).Theskeletoninthecloset:Thebatteredwomansyndrome,self-defense,andexperttestimony.MercerLawReview,39,545–89.
Meares,T.L.,&Kahan,D.M.(1998).Lawand(normsof)orderintheinnercity.Law&SocietyReview,32,805–38.
Mele,A.(1995).Autonomousagents:Fromselfcontroltoautonomy.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.
Milgram,S.(1963).Behavioralstudyofobedience.JournalofAbnormalandSocialPsychology,4,371–78.
Mischel,W.(1968).Personalityandassessment.NewYork:JohnWiley.
Mischel,W.(2004).Towardanintegrativescienceoftheperson.AnnualReviewofPsychology,55,1–22.
Mischel,W.,&Shoda,Y.(1995).Acognitive-affectivesystemtheoryofpersonality:Reconceptualizingsituations,dispositions,dynamics,andinvarianceinpersonalitystructure.PsychologicalReview,102,246–68.
Mischel,W.,Shoda,Y.,&Mendoza-Denton,R.(2002).Situation-behaviorprofilesasalocusofconsistencyinpersonality.CurrentDirectionsinPsychologicalScience,11,50–54.
Mischel,W.,Shoda,Y.,&Smith,R.E.(2003).Introductiontopersonality:Towardanintegration(7thEd.).NewYork:JohnWiley.
Monahan,J.,&Walker,L.(1985).Socialscienceinlaw:Casesandmaterials.Mineola,NY:FoundationPress.
Morse,S.J.(1995).The‘newsyndromeexcusesyndrome.’CriminalJusticeEthics,14,3–15.
Morse,S.J.(1998).Excusingandthenewexcusedefenses:Alegalandconceptualreview.CrimeandJustice,23,329–406.
Nagel,T.(1979).Mortalquestions.Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Page 24
Two Social Psychologists' Reflections on Situationism and the Criminal JusticeSystem
Page 24 of 36
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2014.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: MiamiUniversity - Ohio; date: 06 October 2014
Nisbett,R.E.(2009).Intelligenceandhowtogetit:Whyschoolsandculturescount.NewYork:W.W.Norton.
Nisbett,R.E.,&Ross,L.(1980).Humaninference:Strategiesandshortcomingsofsocialjudgment.EnglewoodCliffs,NJ:Prentice-Hall.
Peoplev.Garziano(1991).230Cal.App.3d241(Cal.Ct.App.).
Peoplev.Trippet(1997).56Cal.App.4th1532(Cal.Ct.App.).
Pronin,E.,Gilovich,T.D.,&Ross,L.(2004).Objectivityintheeyeofthebeholder:Divergentperceptionsofbiasinselfversusothers.PsychologicalReview,111,781–99.
Pronin,E.,Lin,D.Y.,&Ross,L.(2002).Thebiasblindspot:Perceptionsofbiasinselfversusothers.PersonalityandSocialPsychologyBulletin,28,369–81.
Prunier,G.(1995).TheRwandacrisis:Historyofagenocide.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress.
Radelet,M.,&Borg,M.J.(2000).Thechangingnatureofdeathpenaltydebates.AnnualReviewofSociology,26,43–61.
Raine,A.(1997).Thepsychopathologyofcrime:Criminalbehaviorasaclinicaldisorder.SanDiego:AcademicPress.
Rawls,J.(1971).Atheoryofjustice.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.
Renteln,A.D.(2004).Theculturaldefense.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.
Robinson,P.H.(1982).Criminallawdefenses:Asystematicanalysis.ColumbiaLawReview,82,199–291.
Rosen,G.(2004).Skepticismaboutmoralresponsibility.PhilosophicalPerspectives,18,295–313.
Ross,L.(1977).Theintuitivepsychologistandhisshortcomings:Distortionsintheattributionprocess.InL.Berkowitz(Ed.),Advancesinexperimentalsocialpsychology(Vol.10,pp.174–221).NewYork:AcademicPress.
Ross,L.,Greene,D.,&House,P.(1977).Thefalseconsensuseffect:Anegocentricbiasinsocialperceptionandattributionprocesses.JournalofExperimentalSocialPsychology,13,279–301.
Ross,L.,Lepper,M.,&Ward,A.(2010).Historyofsocialpsychology:Insights,challenges,andcontributionstotheoryandapplication.InS.T.Fiske,D.T.Gilbert&G.Lindzey(Eds.),Handbookofsocialpsychology(5thEd.),(Vol.1,pp.3–50).Hoboken,NJ:JohnWiley.
Page 25
Two Social Psychologists' Reflections on Situationism and the Criminal JusticeSystem
Page 25 of 36
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2014.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: MiamiUniversity - Ohio; date: 06 October 2014
Ross,L.,&Nisbett,R.E.(1991).Thepersonandthesituation:Perspectivesofsocialpsychology.NewYork:McGraw-Hill.
Ross,L.,&Shestowsky,D.(2003).Contemporarypsychology'schallengestolegaltheoryandpractice.NorthwesternUniversityLawReview,97,1081–114.
Ross,L.,&Ward,A.(1996).Naiverealismineverydaylife:Implicationsforsocialconflictandmisunderstanding.InE.S.Reed,E.Turiel,&T.Brown(Eds.),Valuesandknowledge(pp.103–36).Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum.
Schopenhauer,A.(1839/1960).Essayonthefreedomofthewill.Trans.byK.Kolenda.Indianapolis:Bobbs-Merrill.
Schwartz,S.S.(2008).Isthereacommonlawnecessitydefenseinfederalcriminallaw?UniversityofChicagoLawReview,75,1259–93.
Scodro,M.A.(2005).Deterrenceandimpliedlimitsonarbitralpower.DukeLawJournal,55,547–607.
Scott,E.S.(2000).Thelegalconstructionofadolescence.HofstraLawReview,29,547–98.
Shepherd,J.M.(2005).Deterrenceversusbrutalization:Capitalpunishment'sdifferingimpactsamongstates.MichiganLawReview,104,203–56.
Steiner,J.M.(2000).ReflectionsonexperiencesinNazideathcamps.InG.Chandler(Ed.),Teacherresourceguide,HolocaustRemembranceProject(pp.21–26).Tampa,FL:Holland&KnightCharitableFoundation.
Stoff,D.M.,&Cairnes,R.B.(Eds.)(1996).Aggressionandviolence:Genetic,neurobiological,andbiosocialperspectives.Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum.
Strandburg,K.S.(2003).Deterrenceandtheconvictionofinnocents.ConnecticutLawReview,35,1321–49.
Vining,M.(2002).Copyrightsfromachild'sperspective.JournalofIntellectualPropertyLaw,9,387–410.
UnitedStatesv.Alexander(1973).471F.2d923,957-65(D.C.Cir.).
Watson,G.(1988).Responsibilityandthelimitsofevil:VariationsonaStrawsoniantheme.InF.D.Schoeman(Ed.),Responsibility,character,andtheemotions:newessaysinmoralpsychology(pp.256–86).Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Widom,C.S.(1989).Thecycleofviolence.Science,244,160–66.
Wilson,J.Q.(1997).Moraljudgment:Doestheabuseexcusethreatenourlegalsystem?NewYork:BasicBooks.
Page 26
Two Social Psychologists' Reflections on Situationism and the Criminal JusticeSystem
Page 26 of 36
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2014.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: MiamiUniversity - Ohio; date: 06 October 2014
Wrightsman,L.S.,Nietzel,M.T.,&Fortune,W.H.(2002).Psychologyandthelegalsystem(5thEd.).Belmont,CA:Wadsworth.
Zamora,J.H.(1999,July27).CopsinvestigateStaynerinseveralunsolvedslayings;Yosemitesuspect'swhereaboutsscrutinized,SanFranciscoExaminer,availableat1999WLNR8192.
Notes:
(*)TheauthorsareindebtedtoPhoebeEllsworthforherinsightfulcommentsonanearlierdraft.TheyalsowouldliketothankresearchassistantsRebekahBarlowYalcinkayaandShannonClawsonfortheirassistance.
(1.)ThisdiscussionisanexpansionofideasthatappearedearlierinRossandShestowsky(2003).
(2.)Forthoroughdiscussionsoftherelevantresearch,seeRoss(1977);andNisbettandRoss(1980).
(3.)SeeWrightsman,Nietzel,andFortune(2002)forareviewoftherelevantempiricalresearch.
(4.)SeeKassinandKiechel(1996)andKassinandSukel(1997)forsummariesofempiricalresearchonmockjurordecision-making.However,itshouldbenotedthatKassinandKiechel(1996)foundthatwhenmockjurorswerepresentedwithconfessionsthatwereinducedbyathreatofpunishment,theywereinclinedtodiscountthem.
(5.)Theextenttowhichthelaypersonacknowledgestheimportanceofsituationalpressuresincreatingcriminalbehavioroverorintandemwithdispositionalconsiderationsisaddressedinstudiesofjurydecision-making.Mitigatingfactorsthatjurorsconsiderinthedeterminationofcapitalpunishment,forexample,includeyouth,mentalretardation,andwhetherthedefendanthadalackofchoiceorcontrolovertheproximatecircumstancesleadingtothecrime(Garvey,1998).Theextenttowhichourlegalsystemacknowledgestherolethatsituationalpressuresplayinthecausationofcriminalbehaviorislikewiseillustratedbyhowcourtsallowforspecificjuryinstructionsincertainkindsofcases(Dressler,2006).Insomecaseswherethebatteredwomansyndromedefenseisused,forexample,courtstendtoaccountforthefactthatwomendonotcommithomicideasfrequentlyasmendo,andalsothatwhentheydokill,thevictimisoftenanabusivehusbandorpartner.Dresslerobservesthattherearethreetypicalhomicidepatternsinbatteredwomancases,andthattheallowanceofjuryinstructionspertainingtoself-defensevariesaccordingtoperceivedimmediacytodefendagainsttheabuse.Inthefirstpattern,theconfrontationalhomicide,thewomenkillsherpartnerwhileinthemidstofbeingbattered(pp.258–59).Courtshavegenerallyallowedjuryinstructionsforself-defenseinthiscategoryofcases(p.260).Inthesecondtypeofbatteredwomancase,thewomankillstheabuserduringatemporarybutsignificantcessationintheabusecycle(p.259).Themajorityofcourtsdonotallowjuryinstructionspertainingtoself-defenseinsuchcases(p.260).Inthethirdtypeofcase,“hired-killer”
Page 27
Two Social Psychologists' Reflections on Situationism and the Criminal JusticeSystem
Page 27 of 36
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2014.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: MiamiUniversity - Ohio; date: 06 October 2014
casesinwhichthewomanhiredorotherwisepersuadedathirdpartytocommitthehomicide,thecourtshaveunanimouslydisallowedjuryinstructionsregardingself-defense(pp.259–60).MonahanandWalker(1985)andMorse(1995,1998)discussanalogousbackgroundfactorsthatmayalsobeconsideredindeterminingtheappropriatenessofjuryinstructionsregardingself-defense,suchasthebatteredchildsyndromeandtherapetraumasyndrome.Foradiscussionoftheextenttowhichcourtshavealsoallowedculturalbackgroundtobe\consideredasamitigatingfactorinthedeterminationofculpability,seeRenteln(2004).Foranexaminationofjurors'difficultiesinunderstandingandapplyingtherelevantinstructions,seeHaney(1998).
(6.)TheModelPenalCodeprovidesinpertinentpart:“Apersonactsnegligentlywithrespecttoamaterialelementofanoffensewhenheshouldbeawareofasubstantialandunjustifiableriskthatthematerialelementexistsorwillresultfromhisconduct.Theriskmustbeofsuchanatureanddegreethattheactor'sfailuretoperceiveit,consideringthenatureandpurposeofhisconductandthecircumstancesknowntohim,involvesagrossdeviationfromthestandardofcarethatareasonablepersonwouldobserveintheactor'ssituation”(§2.02(2)(d));“apersonisnotguiltyofanoffenseunlessheactedpurposely,knowingly,recklesslyornegligently,asthelawmayrequire,withrespecttoeachmaterialelementoftheoffense”(§2.02(1)).
(7.)Theduressandnecessitydefensesareexamplesofthisphenomenon.TheModelPenalCodeprovidesfortheformerbystatingthat“[i]tisanaffirmativedefensethattheactorengagedintheconductchargedtoconstituteanoffensebecausehewascoercedtodosobytheuseof,orathreattouse,unlawfulforceagainsthispersonorthepersonofanother,thatapersonofreasonablefirmnessinhissituationwouldhavebeenunabletoresist”(§2.09(1));theCodeaddressesthelatterbystatingthat“[c]onductthattheactorbelievestobenecessarytoavoidaharmoreviltohimselfortoanotherisjustifiable,providedthat:theharmorevilsoughttobeavoidedbysuchconductisgreaterthanthatsoughttobepreventedbythelawdefiningtheoffensecharged;andneithertheCodenorotherlawdefiningtheoffenseprovidesexceptionsordefensesdealingwiththespecificsituationinvolved;andalegislativepurposetoexcludethejustificationclaimeddoesnototherwiseplainlyappear”(§3.02(1)(a)-(c)).However,scholarssuchasMearesandKahan(1998)notethattherationalactorstandardembeddedincriminallaw—evidentintheframingofdefensessuchasduressandnecessity—ignoretheroleandinfluenceofsocialnormswithinacommunity.Forexample,thereasonablepersonstandardwouldnottakeintoconsiderationtheextenttowhichdelinquencymayactuallybestatus-enhancingforgangmembers.MearesandKahan(1998)arguethatthiskindofoversightofsocialnormsandgroupdynamicsmaythencausetraditionalcrimedeterrencestrategiessuchasseverepenaltiestobackfire.
(8.)Martin(2005,p.1527)notesthatthenecessitydefense,“likeotherjustificationdefenses,allowsadefendanttoevaderesponsibilityforotherwisecriminalactionsnotwithstandingproofoftheelementsoftheoffense.”
(9.)Assomelegalscholarshavenoted,thisjustificationprincipleisinterpretedtopertainonlytoextraordinaryfactualcircumstances(seeRobinson,1982).Forexample,in
Page 28
Two Social Psychologists' Reflections on Situationism and the Criminal JusticeSystem
Page 28 of 36
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2014.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: MiamiUniversity - Ohio; date: 06 October 2014
California,between1990andMay2009,outof19appellatecases,onlyonecasefoundsufficientevidenceforadefenseonthesegrounds—theappellatecourtinInreEichorn,69Cal.App.4th382(Cal.Ct.App.1998)grantedapetitionforwritofhabeascorpuschallengingthehomelesspetitioner'sconviction,findingthatthepetitionerhadpresentedsufficientevidencetopresentadefenseofnecessitytothejury,forthemisdemeanoroffenseofviolatingacityordinancewhichbannedsleepingindesignatedpublicareas.Incontrast,Peoplev.Trippet(1997),56Cal.App.4th1532(Cal.Ct.App.1997)heldthatthecommonlawmedicalnecessitydefensewasproperlyexcludedasthedefendanthadadequatelegalalternativestotransportingandpossessingmarijuana.AndPeoplev.Garziano(1991)heldthatthosewhocommitcrimeswhiledemonstratingatmedicalclinicsthatprovideabortionscannotescapecriminalresponsibilitybyinvokingthenecessitydefense.
(10.)Inthatregard,longitudinalstudiesofholocaustperpetrators,soldiersguiltyofwartimeatrocities,andurbanriotersareinstructive.Mostnotably,studiesofconcentrationcampguardsinWorldWarIIsuggestthattheindividualsinquestiontypicallyledunexceptionallivesbeforeandaftertheirwartimemisdeeds(Steiner,2000).Indeed,butforHitler'simprobablerisetopowerandEichmann'sparallelriseintheSchutzstaffel(SS),onecanwellimaginethatEichmannwouldhavelivedouthislifeasafacelessbureaucratormid-levelcorporatemanagerratherthanasthemonstrousperpetratorofthecrimesagainsthumanityforwhichhewaspunished.
(11.)FieldobservationsbytheCountyofSantaCruzProbationDepartmentinSantaCruz,California,suggestthatevenrelativelysmallinterventionsthatmightbedescribedassituational,suchasprovidingjuvenilesaridehomefromeventswhentheirparentsareunabletodoso,canreducetheneedforjuveniledetention(Mariscal,2003).
(12.)SeeHaney(1998)foradiscussionofcontrastingindividualistandsituationistorientationstothelaw.
(13.)Forexample,Asch'sconformitystudiesillustratethelong-standinginterestamongsocialpsychologistsseekingtodeterminehow,andtowhatextent,socialforcesinfluencebehavior.Inparticular,Aschexploredwhetheranindividualwouldgiveresponsesconflictingwithobjectivereality,suchasmisrepresentingthelengthoflinesonpaperwhenthemajorityofpersonstheywereinteractingwithdidso(seeAsch,1951,1955,1956).DarleyandLatané'swork(1968)suggeststhatsituationalforcesalsomediatelesstrivialresponses,suchasthelikelihoodofanindividualreportinganemergencyheorshewitnesses,forexample—overhearinganepilepticseizureorobservingsmokeinaroom.Wheninthepresenceofothers,orwhenholdingthebeliefthatothersarealsoawareoftheevent,participantswerelesslikelytoreporttheemergency.Similarly,Milgram'sfamousstudyonobediencedemonstratesthatthepresenceandinstructionsofanauthorityfigurecanbeenoughtoencourageindividualstocontinuewithactionsthattheybelievearecausingconsiderablepaintoanother(Milgram,1963).FreedmanandFraser(1966)illustrateasimilarpsychologicalprocessatworkwhenaperson(whohasnoobjectiveauthoritystatus)makesasubstantialrequestthattheparticipantconcedestosimplybecauseheorshepreviouslyagreedtoarathertrivialbutrelatedrequest.
Page 29
Two Social Psychologists' Reflections on Situationism and the Criminal JusticeSystem
Page 29 of 36
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2014.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: MiamiUniversity - Ohio; date: 06 October 2014
Foramorecomprehensivereviewofthesituationisttraditioninsocialpsychology,seeRoss,Lepper,andWard(2010).
(14.)Mischel's(1968)classicearlydiscussionofthisissue(seealsoreviewsbyNisbett&Ross,1980;Ross&Nisbett,1991)includedasummaryoftheworkbyHartshorneandMay(1928),showingthatthecorrelationbetweenhonestyinonetypeofsituation(suchasanopportunitytostealmoney)andhonestyinanothertypeofsituation(suchasanopportunitytocheatonatest)wasmodestatbest.Mischelandcolleaguessubsequentlyaddedtoourunderstandingofconsistencyandstabilityinmanifestationsofpersondispositionsbyexploringmore“idiographic”(person-specificandsituation-specific)patternsor“signatures”ofbehavior(see,e.g.,Mischel,2004;Mischel,Shoda,&Mendoza-Denton,2002;Mischel&Shoda,1995;Mischel,Shoda,&Smith,2003).Buteventhatlaterworksuggeststhat“criminality”onthepartofanygivenindividualislikelytoreflectconsiderablesituationaldependence.Ineverydaycontexts,thereis,ofcourse,acomplexinteractionor“confounding”betweenthepersonandsituation(Ross&Nisbett,1991,pp.19–20).Thatis,tosomeextent,peoplechoosethesituationstowhichtheythenareobligedtorespond,andtosomeextentotherpeopleimposeinducementsandconstraintsasafunctionofwhattheyperceivetobethenatureofthepersonwithwhomtheyaredealing.Itisthisconfounding,which,ofcourse,isanimportantsourceoftheconsistencyofbehaviorthatwedoobserveoutsidethelaboratory,thattheearlyinvestigatorsofbehavioralconsistencydiscussedbyMischel(1968)soughttoeliminatewhentheyexaminedhowasampleofrespondentswouldrespondtoanidenticalsetofstimuluscircumstances.
(15.)Onemustbecautiousinunderestimatingtheimportanceofsituationalfactorsandattributingviolentbehaviorsolelyorprimarilytoperson-basedvariables,asthismayresultinthefundamentalattributionerror(seeRoss,1977;Ross&Nisbett,1991).
(16.)AthoroughreviewofthisliteraturefromacriticalrealismperspectiveisfoundinChenandHanson(2004).Inparticular,theirdiscussionofthelinkagebetweenschemasandtheaffecttiedtoortriggeredbytheseschemasisinstructive.
(17.)ThemostcomprehensiveaccountofnaïverealismisprovidedinRossandWard(1996);seealsoPronin,Gilovich,andRoss(2004).TherelevantideasarealsodiscussedinaseminalpaperbyIchheiser(1949).
(18.)EvidenceofthetendencytoseeothersingeneralasmorebiasedthanoneselfispresentedinPronin,Lin,andRoss(2002).Evidencethatperceivedbiasinothersisafunctionofperceiveddiscrepancybetweenone'sownviewsandothers'viewsispresentedinPronin,Gilovich,andRoss(2004).Itisinterestingtonotethatpeopleareawarethattheirparticularviewsandprioritiesmaybeshapedbyexperiencesarisingfromtheirparticularclass,racial,ethnic,orgenderidentity,buttheyfeelthatintheirowncasesuchfactorsareasourceofenlightenment,whereasotherpeople'sparticularexperiencesandidentityareasourceofwhatisatbest“understandable”bias(seeEhrlinger,Gilovich,&Ross,2005).
Page 30
Two Social Psychologists' Reflections on Situationism and the Criminal JusticeSystem
Page 30 of 36
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2014.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: MiamiUniversity - Ohio; date: 06 October 2014
(19.)Athirdimplicationofnaïverealismisatendencyforpeopletothinkthattheywillbemoresuccessfulinpersuadingindividualsonthe“otherside”thanviceversa,andbythesametokenthatdisinterestedthirdpartieswillagreewiththemmorethanwiththosepresentingtheopposingviewpoint.Thelattermisperception,ofcourse,hasimplicationsforsettlementnegotiation(insofaraslitigantsmayforgosettlementopportunitiesbecausetheyoverestimatethelikelihoodthatajudgeorjurywillseethingsastheydo)andforlitigants'expectationsabout,andresponsesto,outcomesultimatelyproducedinthecourtroom.
(20.)SeeNisbett(2009)foradiscussionoftheacademicgainspromotedbyintroducingmessagesthatexplicityassuredisadvantagedminoritygroupchildrenthatthedifficultiestheyarefacinginaneweducationsettingareonesthatallstudentsinitiallyexperience,thattheyarewelcomeand“belong,”andthattheirteachershavebothhighexpectationsforthem,andconfidencethattheywillmeetsuchexpectations.
(22.)Whethercapitalpunishmenthasadeterrenteffectissimilarlyahotlydebatedissue.Shepherd(2005)arguesthattheambiguityoverwhethercapitalpunishmentdeterscrimeresultsfromaclashofmethodsbetweendisciplines,whichheclaimscanbereconciled.Shepherdnotesthatempiricalstudiesbyeconomistsconsistentlyshowthatcapitalpunishmenthasadeterrenteffect,whereasresearchbylegalscholarsandsociologistshasarrivedattheoppositeconclusion.Theformerusedlargedatasetscompiledfromall50states,whilethelatterfocusedtheiranalysisononestateorasmallgroupofstates.Inreconcilingthesemethods,Shepherdassertsthatbothconclusionsarecorrect.Capitalpunishmentdoesdeter—butonlyinasmallnumberofstatesthatexecuterelativelymoreprisoners.Whendatafromstateswithalargenumberofexecutionsandahighdeterrencerateareaveragedwiththosefromstateswithasmallnumberofexecutions,theresultisthatthehighdeterrenceratefromthestateswithmanyexecutionsoverwhelmsthelackofdeterrenceandevenincreasedbrutalizationinstateswithfewerexecutions.OfparticularsignificanceisShepherd'sfindingthatalthoughcapitalpunishmenteffectivelydeterscrimeinsomestates,itisalsoassociatedwithanincreasedmurderrateinalmosttwiceasmanyotherstates.
(23.)Onestudysupportingthisconclusionexamined962felonyoffendersinEssexCounty,NewJersey(Gottfredson,1999).Inthisresearch,thequestionofwhetherpunishmentincreasedordecreasedcriminalbehaviorwasaddressedbycomparingjudicialperceptionsofthelikelihoodofrecidivism,characteristicsoftheconvicted,typeofsentence,andtimeactuallyserved.Gottfredsonnotedthatotherthantheeffectofincapacitationitself,confinementdidnotalterthelikelihoodoffuturecriminality.Inaddition,wheretheoffenderwasconfinedmadelittledifference.Thelengthofsentencethatwasissueddidnotimpactfuturebehavior,andtimeactuallyservedhadonlyaslighteffectonthelikelihoodoffuturecrimes.DoobandWebster(2003)examinetherelationshipbetweensentencingseverityandlevelsofcrime,findingthatvariationsinsentencingareunlikelytodetercrime.
(24.)Theanalogythatcomestomindisthatofdealingwiththecarrierofalife-threateningcommunicabledisease.Thejustificationforquarantineisclearenough,buttherewould
Page 31
Two Social Psychologists' Reflections on Situationism and the Criminal JusticeSystem
Page 31 of 36
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2014.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: MiamiUniversity - Ohio; date: 06 October 2014
benojustificationformakingtheconditionsofthatquarantineanymoreaversivetotheindividualthanisnecessarytoprotectthepublic.Bersoff(2002,p.573),whoarguesthatwhileitmaybeappropriatetoseparatecriminalsfromsociety,findingthatsuchsegregationisjustifiableisdistinguishablefrombelievingthatcriminalsdeserve“hatefulretribution,”andthatthelaw'sresistancetocreatingmorehumaneinstitutionsandusingmoreempiricallyvalidatedinterventionstodealwithcriminalsillustrateshowunreceptivethelawistoscienceandreality.Alackofappropriateresourcescanalsobackfireandleadtothebreakdownoftheprisonsystem.InColemanv.Schwarzenegger(2009),forexample,thecourttentativelyheldthattheovercrowdinginCalifornia'sprisonsistheprimarycauseofthestate'sfailuretoprovideconstitutionallyadequatemedicalandmentalhealthcaretoCaliforniainmates;thecourtalsonotedthatinlightofCalifornia'seconomiccrisisandthelowprobabilityofincreasedfundstoaddressthisissue,aswellasthefailureofpreviousremedialmeasures,a“prisonerreleaseorder”wasnecessary.
(25.)Thesituationistperspectiveregardingculpabilityissomewhatalignedwiththatofphilosopherswhoexpressskepticismaboutmoralresponsibilityonthegroundsthatmoralassessmentsandtheweightgiventosuchassessmentsarethemselvesproductsofsituationalinfluencesofwhichtheactormayormaynotbeaware.Rosen(2004)discussesthisskepticalstanceandnotesitsparticularlegitimacyinthecaseofassessmentsofmoralculpabilitythataremadeabouttheactionsofothers.
(26.)NotwithstandingthefactthatPattyHearstcame,foratime,toholdbeliefsandadoptgoalsuponwhichshe“freely”actedincommittingatleastsomeofhertransgressions,thesocialsituationintowhichshewastemporarilythrust,ratherthan“badcharacter”intheusualsenseoftheterm,clearlywasthecauseofhertransgressions.Mostobserverswouldagreethatshemeritsthepublicsympathy,andthegovernmentalpardon,thatsheeventuallyreceived.Fewwouldbesurprisedtolearnthatshecommittednoadditionalcriminaloffensesintheyearsfollowingherimprisonment.Thissagagivesrise,however,toaprovocativequestion.Whyshouldyoungfelonswho,byaccidentsofbirthandcircumstanceratherthanchoice,wereexposedtotheinfluenceofpotentantisocialnorms,adoptedantisocialbeliefsandvalues,enjoyedreadyaccesstoweapons,andsuccumbedwhengivenopportunitiestotransgress,meritoursympathyandleniencylessthanPattyHearst?Giventhesameprivilegedcircumstancesthatsheenjoyedbothbeforeandafterherforayintocriminalbehavior,fewyoungmenorwomenbecomebankrobbersoraccomplicestohomicide.Indeed,criminalactionswouldseemtobealesslikelyconsequenceoftheunusualsituationtowhichMs.Hearstwasexposedthanofthemoremundanelytoxicchildhoodexperiencesandsocialenvironmentsthatfacedmanyofthepeoplewholanguishinourprisons.
(27.)Mather(1988)reviewsspousalabuseself-defensecases(suchasthebatteredwoman'sdefense),andLamparello(2001)discussescasesinwhichparentsrefusedmedicaltreatmentfortheirchildrentocomplywithreligiousstrictures.
(28.)CaryStayner,triedinCaliforniain2001formultiplemurders,hadbeensubjectedtothekindsofsexualandphysicalabusethathaveoftenbeenlinkedtolatercriminal
Page 32
Two Social Psychologists' Reflections on Situationism and the Criminal JusticeSystem
Page 32 of 36
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2014.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: MiamiUniversity - Ohio; date: 06 October 2014
behavior,andwasalsothebrotherofayoungmanwhohadsufferedseveralyearsofsexualabuseatthehandsofhiskidnapperbeforebeingrescued(Zamora,1999).MalvowasateenagerwhocommittedastringofmurdersinWashington,D.C.,Maryland,andVirginiaunderthestronginfluence,ifnottotalcontrol,ofanoldermentorlaterknownas“theDCSniper.”
(29.)Insuchcases,itisalsoappropriatetodiscussfunctionsofpunishmentotherthandeterrenceor“justretribution”—inparticular,theneedforcatharsisonthepartofthefamiliesandkinsmenofvictims.Wewillreturntoadiscussionofsuchsubjective,psychicneedsandconsiderationslaterinthischapter.
(30.)Atran(2003)arguesthatautomaticallyattributingpsychopathologytosuicideterroristscanbeviewedasareflectionofthe“fundamentalattributionerror”(Ross,1977).
(31.)ThisissimilartothenotionexpressedbyphilosopherssuchasKant,thatluckshouldnotdeterminetheculpabilityofanindividual(seeNagel,1979).ToNagel,moralluckreferstothephenomenoninwhichanindividualcontinuestobethesubjectofmoralassessment,whetherpositiveornegative,evenwhensignificantaspectsofthecircumstancesathandarenotwithintheindividual'scontrol.
(32.)Ofcourse,onecanacknowledgethelikelihoodthatonewouldrespondsimilarlyinsimilarcircumstancesandexpecttobepunished(andperhapsevenregardsuchpunishmentasjustandappropriate).Suchanacknowledgmentwouldreflecttheideathat“moralluck”canplayasignificantandjustifiableroleindeterminingpunishment.
(33.)Foradetaileddescriptionofthesealternativeformulations,seeLakoff(1996)whoarguesthatdifferencesbetweenpoliticalconservativesandliberalsintheUnitedStatesarerootedincompetingmodelsormetaphorsoffamilylife,wherebyconservativesembracethemodelofastrictfatherwhogiveschildrenwhattheyearnbyobeyingrulesandliberalsembracethemodelofanurturingparentwhogiveschildrenwhattheyneed.
(34.)Inasense,theSentencingReformAct(SRA)representsarejectionofahighlyperson-specificapproachbysettinglimitsonthediscretioninsentencingformerlyenjoyedbyjudgesinfederalcriminalcases.ForadiscussionofthehistoryandrationaleoftheSRA,seeDriessen&Durham(2002).
(35.)This“unanticipatedside-effects”excuseisinfactbeingdiscussedinrelationtowhetheranantimalarialdrugmighthavebeenthecauseofasmallnumberofmilitarypersonnelkillingtheirwivesafterreturningfromtheirSpecialOperationsserviceinAfghanistan(Lutz&Elliston,2002).Forausefuldiscussioncontrastingthelegalimplicationsofvoluntaryandinvoluntaryintoxication,seeDressler(2006,pp.345–361).
(36.)Seenote5,supra.Inillustratingthiscontrast,considerthatjustificationisanaffirmativedefenseforcriminalchargesundertheModelPenalCodeart.3.Ingeneral,conduct(suchasconductostensiblydoneinthenameof“selfdefense”)isjustifiedwhen
Page 33
Two Social Psychologists' Reflections on Situationism and the Criminal JusticeSystem
Page 33 of 36
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2014.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: MiamiUniversity - Ohio; date: 06 October 2014
theactorbelievesthatitisnecessarytoactinsuchawaytoavoidharmorevilfromoccurringtooneselfortoothersiftheharmorevilsoughttobeavoidedisgreaterthanthatoftheoffensecharged(see§3.02(1)(a)).Theuseofforceisgenerallyjustifiablewhentheindividualactingreasonablybelievesittobeimmediatelynecessarytoprotecthimselfagainsttheunlawfuluseofforcebyanother(see§3.04(1)).Whereanindividualassaultsamemberofagroupafterwitnessinganeffectiveandincendiaryspeechagainstthatgroup,asocialpsychologistmayviewtheincendiaryspeechtobeanimportantproximatecauseoftheassault,butitisunlikelytomeetthereasonablepersonstandardfor“immediatelynecessary”toprotectoneselfagainstunlawfuluseofforcebyanother.Therefore,theforceusedinthiscircumstancewillnotbejustified.Similarly,theindividualwhorespondswithforcewhenfacedwithatauntbyapeerorchallengeaboutthedepthoftheircommitmentwillalsoprobablyfailthe“immediatelynecessary”requirement.Renteln(2004)providesaprobinganalysisofthedifficultiesindeterminingtowhatextentfact-findersshouldconsideradefendant'sculturalbackgroundwhenapplyingthereasonablepersonstandardandassessingculpabilitygenerally.
(37.)SeeMalle(1997)on“folk”or“lay”theoriesofaction.Hisdistinctionbetween“explanations”and“reasons”forbehaviornicelycapturesthedifferencebetweenscientificandlayconceptionsofbehavioralcausation.
(38.)Whenahomicideiscommittedintentionally,butalsoastheresultof“adequateprovocation,”suchanoffensemaybemitigatedfromachargeofmurdertothatofmanslaughter(Dressler,2006,p.571).Incontemporarylegalpractice,juriestypicallydecidewhatconstitutesadequateprovocation,althoughtheyaregenerallyadvisedtoapplyareasonablepersonstandardwhenmakingthatassessment(Dressler,2006,p.573).
(39.)Forexample,thelowregardinwhichthelegalsystemholdstherottensocialbackgrounddefense(RSBD)isinstructive.TheRSBDproposesthatbecausethesocialconditionsinwhichonewasraisedcannegativelyinfluenceanindividual'slateractions,factorssuchasgrowingupinpovertyandbeingsubjectedtoneglectormistreatmentshouldexcuseanactorfromcriminalliability,seeKaye(2005,p.1173).JudgeDavidBazelonfirstwroteabouttheRSBDinhisdissentingopinioninUnitedStatesv.Alexander(1973).ThoughBazelon'sopinionsparkedscholarlydebate,theargumentitselfwasneverturnedintoavalidlegaldefense.TheRSBDfailsasavaliddefenseforseveralreasons.Legalscholarshavearguedthatbecauseresearchhasnotarticulatedanydirectrelationshipbetweenaparticularsocialconditionandaparticularcriminalactwithsufficientclarity,defendantsshouldnotbeabletouseitasadefense(Kaye,2005,p.1173).Also,theRSBDunderminestheretributivetheoryofpunishment:ifsocialbackgroundfactorscauseapersontocommitacrime,retributivejustificationsforpunishingthatpersondisappearbecausethecrimewouldhavebeencausedbyfactorsbeyondtheperson'scontrol(seeKirchmeier,2004,p.684).Atitsextreme,theRSBDwouldeliminateaperson'sresponsibilityforhisorheractionsbecauseone'supbringingalwaysinfluencesthechoicesapersonmakes(seeForde-Mazrui,2004,p.730).
(40.)SeeKagan(2007),notingthatwithinthefieldofpsychologyoverthelastcentury
Page 34
Two Social Psychologists' Reflections on Situationism and the Criminal JusticeSystem
Page 34 of 36
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2014.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: MiamiUniversity - Ohio; date: 06 October 2014
therehasbeenanincreasedemphasisonthewaysinwhichbiologyshapeshumanbehavior.Examininganumberofpsychologicalstudiesinthisvein,Kagancritiquesthemethodsemployedinthesetodateandalsocautionsagainstignoringthecomplexitybetweengenesandenvironment.
(41.)Forexample,MassachusettsMutualLifeInsuranceCo.v.Woodal(2003)discusseslegalloreandthemisunderstandingofthepublicandmediaoftheuseofexcuses,andcommentingonthefamouscaseofDanWhite,chargedwithmurderingSanFranciscoMayorGeorgeMoscone,andHarveyMilk,thefirstopenlygaymantobeelectedtopublicofficeinCalifornia.
Attrial,White'slawyerarguedthathewassufferingfrom“diminishedcapacity,”acontroversialdefensethenpermissibleinCaliforniacourts.Whitesupposedlywassufferingfromdepressionandthusincapableofpremeditatedmurder.Asevidenceofthis,psychiatristMartinBlindertestifiedthattheformerlyhealth-consciousWhitehadrecentlybecomeajunkfoodjunkie.Blindercommentedthattoomuchsugarcanaffectthechemicalbalanceinthebrainandworsendepression,butdidn'tblamethecrimeonbaddiet.Rather,heofferedjunkfooduseasproofofWhite'smentalstate—inotherwords,TwinkieconsumptionwasaneffectratherthanthecauseofWhite'sproblems.Butthemediaandpublicimmediately—andmisleadingly—dubbedthedefense'sargumentthe“Twinkiedefense”(fn.7).
WhileWhite'sdefenseteamdidarguesuccessfullyforarulingofdiminishedcapacity,resultinginaverdictofvoluntarymanslaughterratherthanmurder,thediminishedcapacitydoctrinewasabolishedinCaliforniabyballotinitiativein1982followingthenegativepublicitysurroundingthecase.
(42.)Arenella(1992)contraststheconditionsformoralblamesetforthbymoralphilosopherswiththoseentrenchedincriminallaw.Arenella(1996)arguesthatthelawespousesaminimalistviewofwhatittakestobeamorallyaccountableagentinordertoensurethatallbutthemostseverelydisabledoffendersareheldaccountablefortheircrimes.
(43.)Possiblereconciliationsofdeterminismandfreewillisofcontinuinginteresttophilosophersandotherscholarsconsideringtheproblemofmoralresponsibilityforone'sactionsandtheconsequencesofsuchactions(seeWatson,1988;alsodiscussionsof“compatibilism“byBok,1998;Fischer&Ravizza,1999;Mele,1995).However,theconceptsoffreewill(asopposedtomotivationorintention)anddeterminismarenormallynottopicsofconcerninmainstreampsychology.
(44.)LaFaveandScott(1986)provideevidencethat“XYY”malesaremorelikelythanotherstoengageinantisocialorcriminalconductleadingtoinstitutionalconfinement(althoughskepticshavesuggestedthatthegeneticfactorinquestionissimplycorrelatedwithlowintelligence,andperhapsincreasedlikelihoodofapprehension).StoffandCairnes(1996)reviewstudiesoncorrelationsbetweenaggressivebehaviorandvariousotherfactorsincludingfamilyandgeneticepidemiology,neurotransmitterandtemporallobe
Page 35
Two Social Psychologists' Reflections on Situationism and the Criminal JusticeSystem
Page 35 of 36
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2014.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: MiamiUniversity - Ohio; date: 06 October 2014
deficiencies,serotoninlevels,andautonomicreactivity.Raine(1997,p.50),however,emphasizesthatgeneticfactorsspeakmerelytoapredispositionforcrime:
Twinandadoptionstudiesnotonlydemonstratethatasubstantialamountofvarianceincriminalbehaviorcanbeattributedtogeneticfactors;theyalsodemonstratethatenvironmentalfactorsareequallyimportant.Forexample,whileaheritabilityestimateof.50indicatesthat50%ofthevarianceincriminalbehaviorisduetogeneticinfluences,italsoindicatesthat50%ofthevariancecanbeattributedtonongenetic(environmentalfactors).
(45.)Masters(1997),forexample,arguesthatearlyexposuretolead(notably,theleadfoundinpaints)seemstobeoneofthestrongestpredictorsofbothviolentcrimesandpropertycrimes.
(46.)Wilson(1997)andHaney(2002)providefurtherdiscussionofthisissue.
(47.)Therelevantanalysisactuallyappliesregardlessofwhetherthose“preternaturallystrong”needs,desires,orinclinationshavetheiroriginingeneticsandphysiologyorinearlyexperiences.Inneithercasedoestheindividualchoosetohave(asopposedtochoosetoacton)thefeelingsinquestion.
(48.)PhenylketonuriaorPKUisageneticdisordercharacterizedbyaninabilityofthebodytoutilizeanaminoacidcalledphenylalaninewhichisessentialforthebuildingofbodyproteins.Thecondition,causedbytheabsenceoftheenzymephenylalaninehydroxylase,canbedetectedwithafewdropsofbloodtakenshortlyafterbirth,andcanreadilytreatedbyprovidingtherequiredenzyme.Theexampleofapotentiallycatastrophicgeneticallydeterminedpredispositionthatcanbecompletelyremediedbyapurelyexternalorsituationalinterventionprovidesanobviousmodelforthosewhoseekwaysofforestallingtheeffectsofothergeneticallyorphysiologicallybaseddispositions,includingperhapscriminalbehavioraldispositions.
(49.)Suchaprescription,whilehumaneinitsintent,shouldnotbetakenassupportfortheunconstitutionalholdingofpeoplewhohavenotenjoyed“dueprocess”andtheotherrightsnormallyaffordedthoseaccusedofacrime.
(50.)DarleyandPittman(2003)discussthepsychologicalbasisfor,andstrengthof,theimpulsetocompensatethevictimandtopunishtheoffender.RegardingdeterrenceandthedeathpenaltyRadeletandBorg(2000)arguethatthosewhosupportcapitalpunishmenthavelessenedtheextenttowhichtheycananddorelyondeterrenceasjustificationforitscontinueduse.
(51.)ThisdiscussionowesanobviousdebttotheseminaldiscussioninJohnRawls's(1971)TheoryofJustice.ApplyingRawls'sideaswouldpromptthesuggestionthatpunishmentsimposedonparticularoffendersforparticularoffensesshouldbethosewewouldchoosetoimposefrombehinda“veilofignorance”regardingourstatus—thatis,notknowingwhetherwewouldprovetobeanoffender,avictimofanoffense,oramere
Page 36
Two Social Psychologists' Reflections on Situationism and the Criminal JusticeSystem
Page 36 of 36
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2014.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: MiamiUniversity - Ohio; date: 06 October 2014
bystander(justaswewouldapplythesametestindecidinghowtotreatthefrail,thehandicapped,ortheindigent).Asourearlierdiscussionofnaïverealismsuggests,however,ourcapacityforsuchobjectivityislimited,andwemightdowelltomakesomeallowanceforthatlimitation.Butitsurelywouldbedifficulttojustifydoinglessthanapplyingsuchatest.
Accessbroughttoyouby: MiamiUniversity-Ohio