Advertisement

Neuroethics

pp 1–12 | Cite as

Neuroscience and Punishment: From Theory to Practice

  • Allan McCayEmail author
  • Jeanette Kennett
Original Paper

Abstract

In a 2004 paper, Greene and Cohen predicted that neuroscience would revolutionise criminal justice by presenting a mechanistic view of human agency that would change people’s intuitions about retributive punishment. According to their theory, this change in intuitions would in turn lead to the demise of retributivism within criminal justice systems. Their influential paper has been challenged, most notably by Morse, who has argued that it is unlikely that there will be major changes to criminal justice systems in response to neuroscience. In this paper we commence a tentative empirical enquiry into the claims of these theorists, focusing on Australian criminal justice. Our analysis of Australian cases is not supportive of claims about the demise of retributive justice, and instead suggests the possibility that neuroscience may be used by the courts to calibrate retributive desert. It is thus more consistent with the predictive claims of Morse than of Greene and Cohen. We also consider evidence derived from interviews with judges, and this leads us to consider the possibility of a backlash against evidence of brain impairment. Finally we note that change in penal aims may be occurring that is unrelated to developments in neuroscience.

Keywords

Neuroscience Neurolaw Retribution Punishment Sentencing 

Notes

References

  1. 1.
    Greene, J., and J. Cohen. 2004. For the law, neuroscience changes nothing and everything. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, B: Biological Sciences 359: 1775–1785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Morse, S. 2010. Lost in the translation? An essay on law and neuroscience. In Law and Neuroscience, Current Legal Issues, ed. Michael Freeman, 530–562. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    McCay, A., and J. Kennett. 2016. My Brain made me do it: will neuroscience change the way we punish criminals? The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/my-brain-made-me-do-it-will-neuroscience-change-the-way-we-punish-criminals-57571 Accessed 2 Jan 2018.
  4. 4.
    Fine, C., and J. Kennett. 2004. Mental impairment, moral understanding and criminal responsibility: Psychopathy and the purposes of punishment. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 27 (5): 425–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hampton, J. 1984. The moral education theory of punishment. Philosophy and Public Affairs 13 (3): 208–238.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Honderich, T. 2006. Punishment: The supposed justifications revisited. London: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Duff, A. 2001. Punishment, communication and community. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Von Hirsch, A. 1993. Censure and sanctions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Feinberg, J. 1994. The expressive function of punishment. In A reader on punishment, ed. A. Duff and D. Garland. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    R v Hoerler. 2004. Sentencing remarks, New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal, NSWCCA 184.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    R v Israil. 2002. Sentencing remarks, New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal, NSWCCA 255.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shariff, A., J.D. Greene, J.C. Karremans, J.B. Luguri, C.J. Clark, J.W. Schooler, R.F. Baumeister, and K.D. Vohs. 2014. Free will and punishment: A mechanistic view of human nature reduces retribution. Psychological Science 25 (8): 1563–1570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Royal Commission into the Protection and Detention of Children in the Northern Territory. 2017. Report of the Royal Commission into the Protection and Detention of Children in the Northern Territory (1). https://childdetentionnt.royalcommission.gov.au/Documents/Royal-Commission-NT-Final-Report-Volume-1.pdf. Accessed 19 Dec 2018.
  14. 14.
    Noyes, Jenny. 2018. Sister fights to stop brother inheriting parents’ money after he killed them. The Sydney Morning Herald. https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/sister-fights-to-stop-brother-inheriting-parents-money-after-he-killed-them-20181023-p50bhn.html Accessed 30 Oct 2018.
  15. 15.
    The Queen v Furlan. 2014. Sentencing remarks, Supreme Court of Victoria, VSC 36.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    R v Terence Martin. 2011. Sentencing Remarks, Supreme Court of Tasmania. (29 September, Unreported).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kennedy v R. 2018. Sentencing remarks, New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal, NSWCCA 43. Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Alicke, M. 2014. Evaluating blame hypotheses. Psychological Inquiry 25 (2): 187–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Clark, C.J., J.B. Luguri, P.H. Ditto, J. Knobe, A.F. Shariff, and R.F. Baumeister. 2014. Free to punish: A motivated account of free will belief. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 106 (4): 501–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rossmanith, K. 2018. Small Wrongs: How we really say sorry in love, life and law, Melbourne: Hardie Grant Books.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hart, H.L.A. 2008. Punishment and responsibility: Essays in philosophy of law. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Victorian Sentencing Council. 2015. Major drug offences: current sentencing practices. https://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/publication-documents/Major%20Drug%20Offences%20Current%20Sentencing%20Practices.pdf Accessed 4 June 2018.
  23. 23.
    Judicial College of Victoria. 2017. Victorian sentencing manual http://www.judicialcollege.vic.edu.au/eManuals/VSM/index.htm#6189.htm Accessed 30 Oct 2018.
  24. 24.
    Kennett, J., N.A. Vincent, and A. Snoek. 2014. Drug addiction and criminal responsibility. In Handbook of Neuroethics, ed. Jens Clausen and Neil Levy. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    McCay, A. 2013. Behavioural genetics, moral agency and retributive sentencing: the case for mitigation. University of Sydney Library: PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Quilter, J. 2014. One-punch laws, mandatory minimums and “alcohol-fuelled” as an aggravating factor: Implications for NSW criminal law. International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy 3 (1): 81–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ryan, Meghan. 2015. Science and the new rehabilitation. Virginia Journal of Criminal Law 3: 261–341.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sentencing Advisory Council (Victoria). 2007. High-risk offenders: Post-sentence supervision and detention. https://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/publication-documents/High%20Risk%20Offenders%20Post%20Sentence%20Supervision%20and%20Detention%20Final%20Report.pdf. Accessed 4 June 2018.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Philosophy DepartmentMacquarie University, Macquarie University Research Centre for Agency, Values and EthicsSydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations