When neurogenetics hurts: examining the use of neuroscience and genetic evidence in sentencing decisions through implicit bias

Courts increasingly use neuroscience and genetic evidence ("neurogenetic evidence") to shed light on various aspects of a defendant's mental state and behavior. The evidence is particularly prevalent in cases involving defendants with mental illnesses and is used to determine issues o...
Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Autor*in:	John Pyun [verfasserIn]

Format:	Artikel
Sprache:	Englisch

Erschienen:	2015

Schlagwörter:	Sentences (Criminal procedure) Set (Psychology) Neurosciences Evidence Mentally ill Laws, regulations and rules Psychological aspects Criminal procedure Mental disorders Bias Criminal sentences

Systematik:	PU 5000:

Übergeordnetes Werk:	Enthalten in: California law review - Berkeley, Calif. : School of Law, 1913, 103(2015), 4, Seite 1019
Übergeordnetes Werk:	volume:103 ; year:2015 ; number:4 ; pages:1019

Links:	Link aufrufen

Katalog-ID:	OLC1967972931

Internformat


LEADER	01000caa a2200265 4500
001	OLC1967972931
003	DE-627
005	20220215172437.0
007	tu
008	160206s2015 xx \|\|\|\|\| 00\| \|\|eng c
028	5	2	\|a PQ20160617
035			\|a (DE-627)OLC1967972931
035			\|a (DE-599)GBVOLC1967972931
035			\|a (PRQ)g741-fc3f581294e6b7b5326d08e90405ca3d6915ba2f36e24cb0580dae76796734613
035			\|a (KEY)0082766520150000103000401019whenneurogeneticshurtsexaminingtheuseofneuroscienc
040			\|a DE-627 \|b ger \|c DE-627 \|e rakwb
041			\|a eng
082	0	4	\|a 340 \|q DNB
084			\|a PU 5000: \|q AVZ \|2 rvk
084			\|a 86.00 \|2 bkl
084			\|a 86.10 \|2 bkl
100	0		\|a John Pyun \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
245	1	0	\|a When neurogenetics hurts: examining the use of neuroscience and genetic evidence in sentencing decisions through implicit bias
264		1	\|c 2015
336			\|a Text \|b txt \|2 rdacontent
337			\|a ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen \|b n \|2 rdamedia
338			\|a Band \|b nc \|2 rdacarrier
520			\|a Courts increasingly use neuroscience and genetic evidence ("neurogenetic evidence") to shed light on various aspects of a defendant's mental state and behavior. The evidence is particularly prevalent in cases involving defendants with mental illnesses and is used to determine issues of mental capacity, personal responsibility, and treatability. However, using neurogenetic evidence risks framing mental illness through a narrow explanatory model -- one relying solely on biological causes. Such evidence elicits both stigma-reducing and stigma-enhancing implicit biases against mental illness, which can manifest themselves in beliefs that a person with mental illness is less blameworthy for his condition, but also more dangerous and less receptive to treatment. These implicit biases affect jurors (and potentially judges) and may influence sentencing decisions in cases involving defendants with mental illnesses, including ultimate sentencing decisions in capital cases. While there has been vast literature on (1) the merging fields of neuro genetics and the law, (2) sentencing decisions in cases involving defendants with mental illnesses, and (3) implicit bias against mental illness, no article has connected the literature to provide an interdisciplinary account of these processes. This Comment argues that the use of neurogenetic evidence in the courtroom may harm defendants with mental illnesses because the nature of the evidence primes negative implicit biases against mental illness. This Comment then explores how this dynamic plays out during the sentencing phase in capital cases involving defendants with mental illnesses.
650		4	\|a Sentences (Criminal procedure)
650		4	\|a Set (Psychology)
650		4	\|a Neurosciences
650		4	\|a Evidence
650		4	\|a Mentally ill
650		4	\|a Laws, regulations and rules
650		4	\|a Psychological aspects
650		4	\|a Criminal procedure
650		4	\|a Mental disorders
650		4	\|a Bias
650		4	\|a Criminal sentences
773	0	8	\|i Enthalten in \|t California law review \|d Berkeley, Calif. : School of Law, 1913 \|g 103(2015), 4, Seite 1019 \|w (DE-627)130440442 \|w (DE-600)702188-4 \|w (DE-576)015943747 \|x 0008-1221 \|7 nnns
773	1	8	\|g volume:103 \|g year:2015 \|g number:4 \|g pages:1019
856	4	2	\|u http://search.proquest.com/docview/1707802791
912			\|a GBV_USEFLAG_A
912			\|a SYSFLAG_A
912			\|a GBV_OLC
912			\|a SSG-OLC-JUR
912			\|a GBV_ILN_21
912			\|a GBV_ILN_24
912			\|a GBV_ILN_70
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2007
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2009
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2041
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2062
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4012
936	r	v	\|a PU 5000:
936	b	k	\|a 86.00 \|q AVZ
936	b	k	\|a 86.10 \|q AVZ
951			\|a AR
952			\|d 103 \|j 2015 \|e 4 \|h 1019

Indexfelder

author_variant	j p jp
matchkey_str	article:00081221:2015----::hnergntchrsxmnntesonuocecadeeieiecisnecn
hierarchy_sort_str	2015
bklnumber	86.00 86.10
publishDate	2015
allfields	PQ20160617 (DE-627)OLC1967972931 (DE-599)GBVOLC1967972931 (PRQ)g741-fc3f581294e6b7b5326d08e90405ca3d6915ba2f36e24cb0580dae76796734613 (KEY)0082766520150000103000401019whenneurogeneticshurtsexaminingtheuseofneuroscienc DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 340 DNB PU 5000: AVZ rvk 86.00 bkl 86.10 bkl John Pyun verfasserin aut When neurogenetics hurts: examining the use of neuroscience and genetic evidence in sentencing decisions through implicit bias 2015 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier Courts increasingly use neuroscience and genetic evidence ("neurogenetic evidence") to shed light on various aspects of a defendant's mental state and behavior. The evidence is particularly prevalent in cases involving defendants with mental illnesses and is used to determine issues of mental capacity, personal responsibility, and treatability. However, using neurogenetic evidence risks framing mental illness through a narrow explanatory model -- one relying solely on biological causes. Such evidence elicits both stigma-reducing and stigma-enhancing implicit biases against mental illness, which can manifest themselves in beliefs that a person with mental illness is less blameworthy for his condition, but also more dangerous and less receptive to treatment. These implicit biases affect jurors (and potentially judges) and may influence sentencing decisions in cases involving defendants with mental illnesses, including ultimate sentencing decisions in capital cases. While there has been vast literature on (1) the merging fields of neuro genetics and the law, (2) sentencing decisions in cases involving defendants with mental illnesses, and (3) implicit bias against mental illness, no article has connected the literature to provide an interdisciplinary account of these processes. This Comment argues that the use of neurogenetic evidence in the courtroom may harm defendants with mental illnesses because the nature of the evidence primes negative implicit biases against mental illness. This Comment then explores how this dynamic plays out during the sentencing phase in capital cases involving defendants with mental illnesses. Sentences (Criminal procedure) Set (Psychology) Neurosciences Evidence Mentally ill Laws, regulations and rules Psychological aspects Criminal procedure Mental disorders Bias Criminal sentences Enthalten in California law review Berkeley, Calif. : School of Law, 1913 103(2015), 4, Seite 1019 (DE-627)130440442 (DE-600)702188-4 (DE-576)015943747 0008-1221 nnns volume:103 year:2015 number:4 pages:1019 http://search.proquest.com/docview/1707802791 GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-JUR GBV_ILN_21 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_2007 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2041 GBV_ILN_2062 GBV_ILN_4012 PU 5000: 86.00 AVZ 86.10 AVZ AR 103 2015 4 1019
spelling	PQ20160617 (DE-627)OLC1967972931 (DE-599)GBVOLC1967972931 (PRQ)g741-fc3f581294e6b7b5326d08e90405ca3d6915ba2f36e24cb0580dae76796734613 (KEY)0082766520150000103000401019whenneurogeneticshurtsexaminingtheuseofneuroscienc DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 340 DNB PU 5000: AVZ rvk 86.00 bkl 86.10 bkl John Pyun verfasserin aut When neurogenetics hurts: examining the use of neuroscience and genetic evidence in sentencing decisions through implicit bias 2015 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier Courts increasingly use neuroscience and genetic evidence ("neurogenetic evidence") to shed light on various aspects of a defendant's mental state and behavior. The evidence is particularly prevalent in cases involving defendants with mental illnesses and is used to determine issues of mental capacity, personal responsibility, and treatability. However, using neurogenetic evidence risks framing mental illness through a narrow explanatory model -- one relying solely on biological causes. Such evidence elicits both stigma-reducing and stigma-enhancing implicit biases against mental illness, which can manifest themselves in beliefs that a person with mental illness is less blameworthy for his condition, but also more dangerous and less receptive to treatment. These implicit biases affect jurors (and potentially judges) and may influence sentencing decisions in cases involving defendants with mental illnesses, including ultimate sentencing decisions in capital cases. While there has been vast literature on (1) the merging fields of neuro genetics and the law, (2) sentencing decisions in cases involving defendants with mental illnesses, and (3) implicit bias against mental illness, no article has connected the literature to provide an interdisciplinary account of these processes. This Comment argues that the use of neurogenetic evidence in the courtroom may harm defendants with mental illnesses because the nature of the evidence primes negative implicit biases against mental illness. This Comment then explores how this dynamic plays out during the sentencing phase in capital cases involving defendants with mental illnesses. Sentences (Criminal procedure) Set (Psychology) Neurosciences Evidence Mentally ill Laws, regulations and rules Psychological aspects Criminal procedure Mental disorders Bias Criminal sentences Enthalten in California law review Berkeley, Calif. : School of Law, 1913 103(2015), 4, Seite 1019 (DE-627)130440442 (DE-600)702188-4 (DE-576)015943747 0008-1221 nnns volume:103 year:2015 number:4 pages:1019 http://search.proquest.com/docview/1707802791 GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-JUR GBV_ILN_21 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_2007 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2041 GBV_ILN_2062 GBV_ILN_4012 PU 5000: 86.00 AVZ 86.10 AVZ AR 103 2015 4 1019
allfields_unstemmed	PQ20160617 (DE-627)OLC1967972931 (DE-599)GBVOLC1967972931 (PRQ)g741-fc3f581294e6b7b5326d08e90405ca3d6915ba2f36e24cb0580dae76796734613 (KEY)0082766520150000103000401019whenneurogeneticshurtsexaminingtheuseofneuroscienc DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 340 DNB PU 5000: AVZ rvk 86.00 bkl 86.10 bkl John Pyun verfasserin aut When neurogenetics hurts: examining the use of neuroscience and genetic evidence in sentencing decisions through implicit bias 2015 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier Courts increasingly use neuroscience and genetic evidence ("neurogenetic evidence") to shed light on various aspects of a defendant's mental state and behavior. The evidence is particularly prevalent in cases involving defendants with mental illnesses and is used to determine issues of mental capacity, personal responsibility, and treatability. However, using neurogenetic evidence risks framing mental illness through a narrow explanatory model -- one relying solely on biological causes. Such evidence elicits both stigma-reducing and stigma-enhancing implicit biases against mental illness, which can manifest themselves in beliefs that a person with mental illness is less blameworthy for his condition, but also more dangerous and less receptive to treatment. These implicit biases affect jurors (and potentially judges) and may influence sentencing decisions in cases involving defendants with mental illnesses, including ultimate sentencing decisions in capital cases. While there has been vast literature on (1) the merging fields of neuro genetics and the law, (2) sentencing decisions in cases involving defendants with mental illnesses, and (3) implicit bias against mental illness, no article has connected the literature to provide an interdisciplinary account of these processes. This Comment argues that the use of neurogenetic evidence in the courtroom may harm defendants with mental illnesses because the nature of the evidence primes negative implicit biases against mental illness. This Comment then explores how this dynamic plays out during the sentencing phase in capital cases involving defendants with mental illnesses. Sentences (Criminal procedure) Set (Psychology) Neurosciences Evidence Mentally ill Laws, regulations and rules Psychological aspects Criminal procedure Mental disorders Bias Criminal sentences Enthalten in California law review Berkeley, Calif. : School of Law, 1913 103(2015), 4, Seite 1019 (DE-627)130440442 (DE-600)702188-4 (DE-576)015943747 0008-1221 nnns volume:103 year:2015 number:4 pages:1019 http://search.proquest.com/docview/1707802791 GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-JUR GBV_ILN_21 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_2007 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2041 GBV_ILN_2062 GBV_ILN_4012 PU 5000: 86.00 AVZ 86.10 AVZ AR 103 2015 4 1019
allfieldsGer	PQ20160617 (DE-627)OLC1967972931 (DE-599)GBVOLC1967972931 (PRQ)g741-fc3f581294e6b7b5326d08e90405ca3d6915ba2f36e24cb0580dae76796734613 (KEY)0082766520150000103000401019whenneurogeneticshurtsexaminingtheuseofneuroscienc DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 340 DNB PU 5000: AVZ rvk 86.00 bkl 86.10 bkl John Pyun verfasserin aut When neurogenetics hurts: examining the use of neuroscience and genetic evidence in sentencing decisions through implicit bias 2015 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier Courts increasingly use neuroscience and genetic evidence ("neurogenetic evidence") to shed light on various aspects of a defendant's mental state and behavior. The evidence is particularly prevalent in cases involving defendants with mental illnesses and is used to determine issues of mental capacity, personal responsibility, and treatability. However, using neurogenetic evidence risks framing mental illness through a narrow explanatory model -- one relying solely on biological causes. Such evidence elicits both stigma-reducing and stigma-enhancing implicit biases against mental illness, which can manifest themselves in beliefs that a person with mental illness is less blameworthy for his condition, but also more dangerous and less receptive to treatment. These implicit biases affect jurors (and potentially judges) and may influence sentencing decisions in cases involving defendants with mental illnesses, including ultimate sentencing decisions in capital cases. While there has been vast literature on (1) the merging fields of neuro genetics and the law, (2) sentencing decisions in cases involving defendants with mental illnesses, and (3) implicit bias against mental illness, no article has connected the literature to provide an interdisciplinary account of these processes. This Comment argues that the use of neurogenetic evidence in the courtroom may harm defendants with mental illnesses because the nature of the evidence primes negative implicit biases against mental illness. This Comment then explores how this dynamic plays out during the sentencing phase in capital cases involving defendants with mental illnesses. Sentences (Criminal procedure) Set (Psychology) Neurosciences Evidence Mentally ill Laws, regulations and rules Psychological aspects Criminal procedure Mental disorders Bias Criminal sentences Enthalten in California law review Berkeley, Calif. : School of Law, 1913 103(2015), 4, Seite 1019 (DE-627)130440442 (DE-600)702188-4 (DE-576)015943747 0008-1221 nnns volume:103 year:2015 number:4 pages:1019 http://search.proquest.com/docview/1707802791 GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-JUR GBV_ILN_21 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_2007 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2041 GBV_ILN_2062 GBV_ILN_4012 PU 5000: 86.00 AVZ 86.10 AVZ AR 103 2015 4 1019
allfieldsSound	PQ20160617 (DE-627)OLC1967972931 (DE-599)GBVOLC1967972931 (PRQ)g741-fc3f581294e6b7b5326d08e90405ca3d6915ba2f36e24cb0580dae76796734613 (KEY)0082766520150000103000401019whenneurogeneticshurtsexaminingtheuseofneuroscienc DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 340 DNB PU 5000: AVZ rvk 86.00 bkl 86.10 bkl John Pyun verfasserin aut When neurogenetics hurts: examining the use of neuroscience and genetic evidence in sentencing decisions through implicit bias 2015 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier Courts increasingly use neuroscience and genetic evidence ("neurogenetic evidence") to shed light on various aspects of a defendant's mental state and behavior. The evidence is particularly prevalent in cases involving defendants with mental illnesses and is used to determine issues of mental capacity, personal responsibility, and treatability. However, using neurogenetic evidence risks framing mental illness through a narrow explanatory model -- one relying solely on biological causes. Such evidence elicits both stigma-reducing and stigma-enhancing implicit biases against mental illness, which can manifest themselves in beliefs that a person with mental illness is less blameworthy for his condition, but also more dangerous and less receptive to treatment. These implicit biases affect jurors (and potentially judges) and may influence sentencing decisions in cases involving defendants with mental illnesses, including ultimate sentencing decisions in capital cases. While there has been vast literature on (1) the merging fields of neuro genetics and the law, (2) sentencing decisions in cases involving defendants with mental illnesses, and (3) implicit bias against mental illness, no article has connected the literature to provide an interdisciplinary account of these processes. This Comment argues that the use of neurogenetic evidence in the courtroom may harm defendants with mental illnesses because the nature of the evidence primes negative implicit biases against mental illness. This Comment then explores how this dynamic plays out during the sentencing phase in capital cases involving defendants with mental illnesses. Sentences (Criminal procedure) Set (Psychology) Neurosciences Evidence Mentally ill Laws, regulations and rules Psychological aspects Criminal procedure Mental disorders Bias Criminal sentences Enthalten in California law review Berkeley, Calif. : School of Law, 1913 103(2015), 4, Seite 1019 (DE-627)130440442 (DE-600)702188-4 (DE-576)015943747 0008-1221 nnns volume:103 year:2015 number:4 pages:1019 http://search.proquest.com/docview/1707802791 GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-JUR GBV_ILN_21 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_2007 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2041 GBV_ILN_2062 GBV_ILN_4012 PU 5000: 86.00 AVZ 86.10 AVZ AR 103 2015 4 1019
language	English
source	Enthalten in California law review 103(2015), 4, Seite 1019 volume:103 year:2015 number:4 pages:1019
sourceStr	Enthalten in California law review 103(2015), 4, Seite 1019 volume:103 year:2015 number:4 pages:1019
format_phy_str_mv	Article
institution	findex.gbv.de
topic_facet	Sentences (Criminal procedure) Set (Psychology) Neurosciences Evidence Mentally ill Laws, regulations and rules Psychological aspects Criminal procedure Mental disorders Bias Criminal sentences
dewey-raw	340
isfreeaccess_bool	false
container_title	California law review
authorswithroles_txt_mv	John Pyun @@aut@@
publishDateDaySort_date	2015-01-01T00:00:00Z
hierarchy_top_id	130440442
dewey-sort	3340
id	OLC1967972931
language_de	englisch
fullrecord	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a2200265 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">OLC1967972931</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20220215172437.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">tu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">160206s2015 xx \|\|\|\|\| 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="028" ind1="5" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">PQ20160617</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)OLC1967972931</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)GBVOLC1967972931</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(PRQ)g741-fc3f581294e6b7b5326d08e90405ca3d6915ba2f36e24cb0580dae76796734613</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(KEY)0082766520150000103000401019whenneurogeneticshurtsexaminingtheuseofneuroscienc</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">340</subfield><subfield code="q">DNB</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">PU 5000:</subfield><subfield code="q">AVZ</subfield><subfield code="2">rvk</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">86.00</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">86.10</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">John Pyun</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">When neurogenetics hurts: examining the use of neuroscience and genetic evidence in sentencing decisions through implicit bias</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2015</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen</subfield><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Band</subfield><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Courts increasingly use neuroscience and genetic evidence ("neurogenetic evidence") to shed light on various aspects of a defendant's mental state and behavior. The evidence is particularly prevalent in cases involving defendants with mental illnesses and is used to determine issues of mental capacity, personal responsibility, and treatability. However, using neurogenetic evidence risks framing mental illness through a narrow explanatory model -- one relying solely on biological causes. Such evidence elicits both stigma-reducing and stigma-enhancing implicit biases against mental illness, which can manifest themselves in beliefs that a person with mental illness is less blameworthy for his condition, but also more dangerous and less receptive to treatment. These implicit biases affect jurors (and potentially judges) and may influence sentencing decisions in cases involving defendants with mental illnesses, including ultimate sentencing decisions in capital cases. While there has been vast literature on (1) the merging fields of neuro genetics and the law, (2) sentencing decisions in cases involving defendants with mental illnesses, and (3) implicit bias against mental illness, no article has connected the literature to provide an interdisciplinary account of these processes. This Comment argues that the use of neurogenetic evidence in the courtroom may harm defendants with mental illnesses because the nature of the evidence primes negative implicit biases against mental illness. This Comment then explores how this dynamic plays out during the sentencing phase in capital cases involving defendants with mental illnesses.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Sentences (Criminal procedure)</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Set (Psychology)</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Neurosciences</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Evidence</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Mentally ill</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Laws, regulations and rules</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Psychological aspects</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Criminal procedure</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Mental disorders</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Bias</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Criminal sentences</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">California law review</subfield><subfield code="d">Berkeley, Calif. : School of Law, 1913</subfield><subfield code="g">103(2015), 4, Seite 1019</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)130440442</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)702188-4</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-576)015943747</subfield><subfield code="x">0008-1221</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:103</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2015</subfield><subfield code="g">number:4</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:1019</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">http://search.proquest.com/docview/1707802791</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_OLC</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-JUR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_21</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2007</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2041</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2062</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="r" ind2="v"><subfield code="a">PU 5000:</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">86.00</subfield><subfield code="q">AVZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">86.10</subfield><subfield code="q">AVZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">103</subfield><subfield code="j">2015</subfield><subfield code="e">4</subfield><subfield code="h">1019</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
author	John Pyun
spellingShingle	John Pyun ddc 340 rvk PU 5000: bkl 86.00 bkl 86.10 misc Sentences (Criminal procedure) misc Set (Psychology) misc Neurosciences misc Evidence misc Mentally ill misc Laws, regulations and rules misc Psychological aspects misc Criminal procedure misc Mental disorders misc Bias misc Criminal sentences When neurogenetics hurts: examining the use of neuroscience and genetic evidence in sentencing decisions through implicit bias
authorStr	John Pyun
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv	@@773@@(DE-627)130440442
format	Article
dewey-ones	340 - Law
delete_txt_mv	keep
author_role	aut
collection	OLC
remote_str	false
illustrated	Not Illustrated
issn	0008-1221
topic_title	340 DNB PU 5000: AVZ rvk 86.00 bkl 86.10 bkl When neurogenetics hurts: examining the use of neuroscience and genetic evidence in sentencing decisions through implicit bias Sentences (Criminal procedure) Set (Psychology) Neurosciences Evidence Mentally ill Laws, regulations and rules Psychological aspects Criminal procedure Mental disorders Bias Criminal sentences
topic	ddc 340 rvk PU 5000: bkl 86.00 bkl 86.10 misc Sentences (Criminal procedure) misc Set (Psychology) misc Neurosciences misc Evidence misc Mentally ill misc Laws, regulations and rules misc Psychological aspects misc Criminal procedure misc Mental disorders misc Bias misc Criminal sentences
topic_unstemmed	ddc 340 rvk PU 5000: bkl 86.00 bkl 86.10 misc Sentences (Criminal procedure) misc Set (Psychology) misc Neurosciences misc Evidence misc Mentally ill misc Laws, regulations and rules misc Psychological aspects misc Criminal procedure misc Mental disorders misc Bias misc Criminal sentences
topic_browse	ddc 340 rvk PU 5000: bkl 86.00 bkl 86.10 misc Sentences (Criminal procedure) misc Set (Psychology) misc Neurosciences misc Evidence misc Mentally ill misc Laws, regulations and rules misc Psychological aspects misc Criminal procedure misc Mental disorders misc Bias misc Criminal sentences
format_facet	Aufsätze Gedruckte Aufsätze
format_main_str_mv	Text Zeitschrift/Artikel
carriertype_str_mv	nc
hierarchy_parent_title	California law review
hierarchy_parent_id	130440442
dewey-tens	340 - Law
hierarchy_top_title	California law review
isfreeaccess_txt	false
familylinks_str_mv	(DE-627)130440442 (DE-600)702188-4 (DE-576)015943747
title	When neurogenetics hurts: examining the use of neuroscience and genetic evidence in sentencing decisions through implicit bias
ctrlnum	(DE-627)OLC1967972931 (DE-599)GBVOLC1967972931 (PRQ)g741-fc3f581294e6b7b5326d08e90405ca3d6915ba2f36e24cb0580dae76796734613 (KEY)0082766520150000103000401019whenneurogeneticshurtsexaminingtheuseofneuroscienc
title_full	When neurogenetics hurts: examining the use of neuroscience and genetic evidence in sentencing decisions through implicit bias
author_sort	John Pyun
journal	California law review
journalStr	California law review
lang_code	eng
isOA_bool	false
dewey-hundreds	300 - Social sciences
recordtype	marc
publishDateSort	2015
contenttype_str_mv	txt
container_start_page	1019
author_browse	John Pyun
container_volume	103
class	340 DNB PU 5000: AVZ rvk 86.00 bkl 86.10 bkl
format_se	Aufsätze
author-letter	John Pyun
dewey-full	340
title_sort	when neurogenetics hurts: examining the use of neuroscience and genetic evidence in sentencing decisions through implicit bias
title_auth	When neurogenetics hurts: examining the use of neuroscience and genetic evidence in sentencing decisions through implicit bias
abstract	Courts increasingly use neuroscience and genetic evidence ("neurogenetic evidence") to shed light on various aspects of a defendant's mental state and behavior. The evidence is particularly prevalent in cases involving defendants with mental illnesses and is used to determine issues of mental capacity, personal responsibility, and treatability. However, using neurogenetic evidence risks framing mental illness through a narrow explanatory model -- one relying solely on biological causes. Such evidence elicits both stigma-reducing and stigma-enhancing implicit biases against mental illness, which can manifest themselves in beliefs that a person with mental illness is less blameworthy for his condition, but also more dangerous and less receptive to treatment. These implicit biases affect jurors (and potentially judges) and may influence sentencing decisions in cases involving defendants with mental illnesses, including ultimate sentencing decisions in capital cases. While there has been vast literature on (1) the merging fields of neuro genetics and the law, (2) sentencing decisions in cases involving defendants with mental illnesses, and (3) implicit bias against mental illness, no article has connected the literature to provide an interdisciplinary account of these processes. This Comment argues that the use of neurogenetic evidence in the courtroom may harm defendants with mental illnesses because the nature of the evidence primes negative implicit biases against mental illness. This Comment then explores how this dynamic plays out during the sentencing phase in capital cases involving defendants with mental illnesses.
abstractGer	Courts increasingly use neuroscience and genetic evidence ("neurogenetic evidence") to shed light on various aspects of a defendant's mental state and behavior. The evidence is particularly prevalent in cases involving defendants with mental illnesses and is used to determine issues of mental capacity, personal responsibility, and treatability. However, using neurogenetic evidence risks framing mental illness through a narrow explanatory model -- one relying solely on biological causes. Such evidence elicits both stigma-reducing and stigma-enhancing implicit biases against mental illness, which can manifest themselves in beliefs that a person with mental illness is less blameworthy for his condition, but also more dangerous and less receptive to treatment. These implicit biases affect jurors (and potentially judges) and may influence sentencing decisions in cases involving defendants with mental illnesses, including ultimate sentencing decisions in capital cases. While there has been vast literature on (1) the merging fields of neuro genetics and the law, (2) sentencing decisions in cases involving defendants with mental illnesses, and (3) implicit bias against mental illness, no article has connected the literature to provide an interdisciplinary account of these processes. This Comment argues that the use of neurogenetic evidence in the courtroom may harm defendants with mental illnesses because the nature of the evidence primes negative implicit biases against mental illness. This Comment then explores how this dynamic plays out during the sentencing phase in capital cases involving defendants with mental illnesses.
abstract_unstemmed	Courts increasingly use neuroscience and genetic evidence ("neurogenetic evidence") to shed light on various aspects of a defendant's mental state and behavior. The evidence is particularly prevalent in cases involving defendants with mental illnesses and is used to determine issues of mental capacity, personal responsibility, and treatability. However, using neurogenetic evidence risks framing mental illness through a narrow explanatory model -- one relying solely on biological causes. Such evidence elicits both stigma-reducing and stigma-enhancing implicit biases against mental illness, which can manifest themselves in beliefs that a person with mental illness is less blameworthy for his condition, but also more dangerous and less receptive to treatment. These implicit biases affect jurors (and potentially judges) and may influence sentencing decisions in cases involving defendants with mental illnesses, including ultimate sentencing decisions in capital cases. While there has been vast literature on (1) the merging fields of neuro genetics and the law, (2) sentencing decisions in cases involving defendants with mental illnesses, and (3) implicit bias against mental illness, no article has connected the literature to provide an interdisciplinary account of these processes. This Comment argues that the use of neurogenetic evidence in the courtroom may harm defendants with mental illnesses because the nature of the evidence primes negative implicit biases against mental illness. This Comment then explores how this dynamic plays out during the sentencing phase in capital cases involving defendants with mental illnesses.
collection_details	GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-JUR GBV_ILN_21 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_2007 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2041 GBV_ILN_2062 GBV_ILN_4012
container_issue	4
title_short	When neurogenetics hurts: examining the use of neuroscience and genetic evidence in sentencing decisions through implicit bias
url	http://search.proquest.com/docview/1707802791
remote_bool	false
ppnlink	130440442
mediatype_str_mv	n
isOA_txt	false
hochschulschrift_bool	false
up_date	2024-07-04T02:20:32.184Z
_version_	1803613248879067136
fullrecord_marcxml	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a2200265 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">OLC1967972931</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20220215172437.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">tu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">160206s2015 xx \|\|\|\|\| 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="028" ind1="5" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">PQ20160617</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)OLC1967972931</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)GBVOLC1967972931</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(PRQ)g741-fc3f581294e6b7b5326d08e90405ca3d6915ba2f36e24cb0580dae76796734613</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(KEY)0082766520150000103000401019whenneurogeneticshurtsexaminingtheuseofneuroscienc</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">340</subfield><subfield code="q">DNB</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">PU 5000:</subfield><subfield code="q">AVZ</subfield><subfield code="2">rvk</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">86.00</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">86.10</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">John Pyun</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">When neurogenetics hurts: examining the use of neuroscience and genetic evidence in sentencing decisions through implicit bias</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2015</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen</subfield><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Band</subfield><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Courts increasingly use neuroscience and genetic evidence ("neurogenetic evidence") to shed light on various aspects of a defendant's mental state and behavior. The evidence is particularly prevalent in cases involving defendants with mental illnesses and is used to determine issues of mental capacity, personal responsibility, and treatability. However, using neurogenetic evidence risks framing mental illness through a narrow explanatory model -- one relying solely on biological causes. Such evidence elicits both stigma-reducing and stigma-enhancing implicit biases against mental illness, which can manifest themselves in beliefs that a person with mental illness is less blameworthy for his condition, but also more dangerous and less receptive to treatment. These implicit biases affect jurors (and potentially judges) and may influence sentencing decisions in cases involving defendants with mental illnesses, including ultimate sentencing decisions in capital cases. While there has been vast literature on (1) the merging fields of neuro genetics and the law, (2) sentencing decisions in cases involving defendants with mental illnesses, and (3) implicit bias against mental illness, no article has connected the literature to provide an interdisciplinary account of these processes. This Comment argues that the use of neurogenetic evidence in the courtroom may harm defendants with mental illnesses because the nature of the evidence primes negative implicit biases against mental illness. This Comment then explores how this dynamic plays out during the sentencing phase in capital cases involving defendants with mental illnesses.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Sentences (Criminal procedure)</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Set (Psychology)</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Neurosciences</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Evidence</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Mentally ill</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Laws, regulations and rules</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Psychological aspects</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Criminal procedure</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Mental disorders</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Bias</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Criminal sentences</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">California law review</subfield><subfield code="d">Berkeley, Calif. : School of Law, 1913</subfield><subfield code="g">103(2015), 4, Seite 1019</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)130440442</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)702188-4</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-576)015943747</subfield><subfield code="x">0008-1221</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:103</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2015</subfield><subfield code="g">number:4</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:1019</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">http://search.proquest.com/docview/1707802791</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_OLC</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-JUR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_21</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2007</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2041</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2062</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="r" ind2="v"><subfield code="a">PU 5000:</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">86.00</subfield><subfield code="q">AVZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">86.10</subfield><subfield code="q">AVZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">103</subfield><subfield code="j">2015</subfield><subfield code="e">4</subfield><subfield code="h">1019</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
score	7.400669

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Schreiben Sie uns!

When neurogenetics hurts: examining the use of neuroscience and genetic evidence in sentencing decisions through implicit bias

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Zugang & Verfügbarkeit

Vorhandene Bände

Nicht das Richtige dabei?