bias of video evidence raised some qualms about what has been seen as the most reliable
form of evidence in the judicial system for a long time: video-based evidence. At first glance,
one might think that this is a correct assumption. Literally seeing what happened at the scene
of a potential crime was no doubt seen as revolutionary when this technology was first implemented.
However, after several decades of using this kind of evidence as poignant methods of conviction,
perhaps it is not as reliable as one might think. According to Dr. Granot's study, phenomenons such
as punishing out-groups as well as the rare but still present 'black sheep effect' (where ingroup
punishments are harsher than outgroups due to an inclination to maintain higher standards) come
from how people focus on various in-groups and out-groups.
perhaps it is not as reliable as one might think. According to Dr. Granot's study, phenomenons such
as punishing out-groups as well as the rare but still present 'black sheep effect' (where ingroup
punishments are harsher than outgroups due to an inclination to maintain higher standards) come
from how people focus on various in-groups and out-groups.
According to the study, a video was shown of a police officer arresting an individual. Those
that were categorized as strongly identifying with police when tasked with giving higher cop
visual attention wished to punish the police officer significantly less than those who weakly
identified with the police officer. During the trial where there was less attention paid to the
police officer and more to the individual being arrested, the two groups were observed to desire
a relatively similar amount of punishment for the police officer. This is believed to indicate that
where one puts one's attention is highly influential to the conclusions that they draw. Although
in legal cases that video evidence is often shown multiple times, this phenomenon can still serve
as an issue if the jurors have an affinity with focusing on one particular part of the video more than
others. Thus biasing their conclusion to a decision based more on visual attention than of blind justice.
Such an important finding could be considered cause for celebration and immediate
implementation into how video-based evidence is processed within the judicial system. However,
the relationship between U.S. courts of justice and neuroscience has not always been a stable
one. Several 'facts' held during the 20th century such as phrenology, lobotomies, and even
eugenics were once points of influence on the judicial system that were then discounted as unsound
science. Individuals such as U.S. District Court Judge and founding member of the MacArthur
Foundation Project on Law and Neuroscience Jed Rakoff finds that the hesitation and skepticism
towards neuroscience can be simply attributed to, "they've been burned before," (Richardson, 2016).
Still, because of the endeavors of neuroscientists around the world, there is a much better understanding
of how human memory works. For example, eye-witness testimony and its various pitfalls that have
been implemented more and more into judicial operations. Individuals like Rakoff believe that the
influence that neuroscience has on public policy changes as well as understanding the forces that
influence human behavior are valuable assets to the U.S. legal system. There is still a gap between
neuroscience and the judicial system. But as more and more sound studies come out reinforcing our
understanding of human behavior, judges around the United States are becoming increasingly more
open to the benefits that these studies can provide to properly exercising justice.
that were categorized as strongly identifying with police when tasked with giving higher cop
visual attention wished to punish the police officer significantly less than those who weakly
identified with the police officer. During the trial where there was less attention paid to the
police officer and more to the individual being arrested, the two groups were observed to desire
a relatively similar amount of punishment for the police officer. This is believed to indicate that
where one puts one's attention is highly influential to the conclusions that they draw. Although
in legal cases that video evidence is often shown multiple times, this phenomenon can still serve
as an issue if the jurors have an affinity with focusing on one particular part of the video more than
others. Thus biasing their conclusion to a decision based more on visual attention than of blind justice.
Such an important finding could be considered cause for celebration and immediate
implementation into how video-based evidence is processed within the judicial system. However,
the relationship between U.S. courts of justice and neuroscience has not always been a stable
one. Several 'facts' held during the 20th century such as phrenology, lobotomies, and even
eugenics were once points of influence on the judicial system that were then discounted as unsound
science. Individuals such as U.S. District Court Judge and founding member of the MacArthur
Foundation Project on Law and Neuroscience Jed Rakoff finds that the hesitation and skepticism
towards neuroscience can be simply attributed to, "they've been burned before," (Richardson, 2016).
Still, because of the endeavors of neuroscientists around the world, there is a much better understanding
of how human memory works. For example, eye-witness testimony and its various pitfalls that have
been implemented more and more into judicial operations. Individuals like Rakoff believe that the
influence that neuroscience has on public policy changes as well as understanding the forces that
influence human behavior are valuable assets to the U.S. legal system. There is still a gap between
neuroscience and the judicial system. But as more and more sound studies come out reinforcing our
understanding of human behavior, judges around the United States are becoming increasingly more
open to the benefits that these studies can provide to properly exercising justice.
Sources
Granot, Y., Balcetis, E., Schneider, K. E., & Tyler, T. R. (2014). Justice is Not Blind:
Visual Attention Exaggerates Effects of Group Identification
on Legal Punishment. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
General, 143(6), 2196–2208. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037893
Visual Attention Exaggerates Effects of Group Identification
on Legal Punishment. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
General, 143(6), 2196–2208. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037893
Richardson, M. W. (2016, November 3). Neurolaw: Combining Neuroscience and
Criminal Justice. Retrieved April 16, 2020, from
Criminal Justice. Retrieved April 16, 2020, from
https://www.brainfacts.org/neuroscience-in-society
/law-economics-and-ethics/2016/neur
/law-economics-and-ethics/2016/neur
olaw-combining-neuroscience-and-criminal-justice-110316
No comments:
Post a Comment