Upload
donguyet
View
219
Download
4
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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)
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.).
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.).
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.
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.
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.
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”
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
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.
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).
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
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
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
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
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
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
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