Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-mmrw7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-13T14:43:19.081Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Judicial Stereotyping Associated with Genetic Essentialist Biases toward Mental Disorders and Potential Negative Effects on Sentencing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2024

Colleen M. Berryessa Open the ORCID record for Colleen M. Berryessa [Opens in a new window]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This research, utilizing qualitative methodology with grounded theory, develops a model that illuminates a process by which judicial stereotyping associated with genetic essentialist biases toward mental disorders may affect judges' views regarding the sentencing and punishment of offenders with mental disorder diagnoses presented or understood to be genetically influenced. Data, collected through interviews with a sample of 59 Pennsylvania State Court judges, suggest that judges exhibit stereotyping behavior by linking the relationships between three particular genetic essentialist biases (immutability, informativeness, uniformity) and three types of stigmatization (pessimism, dangerousness, family stigma) associated with each bias. When judges exhibited this stereotyping behavior without the effects of intervening conditions, they then expressed how knowledge of the genetic influences of an offender's mental disorder would negatively influence views on punishment, specifically related to more restrictive sentences and support for deterrence and incapacitation. Three intervening conditions associated with judges' personal characteristics (personal experiences involving genetics, strength of determinism vs. free will beliefs, having no personal experiences with mental disorders) influenced whether judges' sentencing views were negatively influenced by such knowledge on genetics. Implications related to therapeutic jurisprudence are discussed.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 53 , Issue 1 , March 2019 , pp. 202 - 238
Copyright
© 2018 Law and Society Association.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

This research was supported by the John Templeton Foundation Genetics and Human Agency Initiative. My very special thanks and acknowledgments to Fortuna Hau and Laura Mutis who provided superb aid during this project. A previous version of this manuscript was a part of a doctoral dissertation at the University of Pennsylvania.

References

Albonetti, Celesta (1991) “An Integration of Theories to Explain Judicial Discretion,” 38 Social Problems 247–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Angermeyer, Matthias, et al. (2011) “Biogenetic Explanations and Public Acceptance of Mental Illness: Systematic Review of Population Studies,” 199 British J. of Psychiatry 367–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aronson, Jay (2007) Genetic Witness: Science, Law, and Controversy in the Making of DNA Profiling. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers.Google Scholar
Aspinwall, Lisa, et al. (2012) “The Double-Edged Sword: Does Biomechanism Increase or Decrease Judges' Sentencing of Psychopaths?” 337 Science 846–49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bastian, Brock & Haslam, Nick (2006) “Psychological Essentialism and Stereotype Endorsement,” 42 J. of Experimental Social Psychology 228–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Batastini, Ashley, et al. (2017) “Mental Illness in the Eyes of the Law: Examining Perceptions of Stigma among Judges and Attorneys,” 24 Psychology, Crime & Law 1–14. Accessed March 21st, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2017.1406092.Google Scholar
Bender, Leslie (2003) “Genes, Parents, and Assisted Reproductive Technologies: Arts, Mistakes, Sex, Race, & Law,” 12 Colum. J. of Gender & Law 1–76.Google ScholarPubMed
Berryessa, Colleen (2014) “Judiciary Views on Criminal Behaviour and Intention of Offenders with High-Functioning Autism,” 5 J. of Intellectual Disabilities and Offending Behaviour 97–106.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berryessa, Colleen (2016) “Judges' Views on Evidence of Genetic Contributions to Mental Disorders in Court,” 27 J. of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology 586–600.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burnside, Fred (1999) “Dying to Get Elected: A Challenge to the Jury Override,” 1999 Wisconsin Law Rev. 1017–50.Google Scholar
Clark, Cory, et al. (2014) “Free to Punish: A Motivated Account of Free Will Belief,” 106 J. of Personality and Social Psychology 501–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Commonwealth v. Sessoms (Pa. 1987) 532 A2 d 775.Google Scholar
Condit, Celeste, et al. (1998) “Determinism and Mass-Media Portrayals of Genetics,” 62 American J. of Human Genetics 979–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Conrad, Peter (1997) “Public Eyes and Private Genes: Historical Frames, News Constructions, and Social Problems,” 44 Social Problems 139–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crane, Paul (2015) “Charging on the Margin,” 57 William & Mary Law Rev. 775–840.Google Scholar
Crocker, Jennifer, et al. (1991) “Social Stigma: The Affective Consequences of Attributional Ambiguity,” 60 J. of Personality and Social Psychology 218–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dar-Nimrod, Ilan & Heine, Steven (2011) “Genetic Essentialism: On the Deceptive Determinism of DNA,” 137 Psychological Bulletin 800–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Denno, Deborah (2011) “Courts' Increasing Consideration of Behavioral Genetics Evidence in Criminal Cases: Results of a Longitudinal Study,” 2011 Michigan State Law Rev. 967–1047.Google Scholar
Dobbin, Shirley, et al. (2001) “Surveying Difficult Populations: Lessons Learned from a National Survey of State Trial Court Judges,” 22 Justice System J. 287–314.Google Scholar
Dreyfuss, Rochelle & Nelkin, Dorothy (1992) “Jurisprudence of Genetics,” 45 Vanderbilt Law Rev. 313–48.Google ScholarPubMed
Farahany, Nita (2016) “Neuroscience and Behavioral Genetics in US Criminal Law: An Empirical Analysis,” 2 J. of Law and the Biosciences 485–509.Google ScholarPubMed
Fuss, J., Dressing, H., & Briken, P. (2015) “Neurogenetic Evidence in the Courtroom: A Randomised Controlled Trial with German Judges,” 52 J. of Medical Genetics 730–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goffman, Erving (1963) Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Goulding, Christina (2017) “Navigating the Complexities of Grounded Theory Research in Advertising,” 46 J. of Advertising 61–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guba, Egon (1981) “Criteria for Assessing the Trustworthiness of Naturalistic Inquiries,” 29 Educational Communication and Technology 75–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartley, Richard, et al. (2007) “Concerning Conceptualization and Operationalization: Sentencing Data and the Focal Concerns Perspective--a Research Note,” 4 Southwest J. of Criminal Justice 58–78.Google Scholar
Haslam, Nick (2011) “Genetic Essentialism, Neuroessentialism, and Stigma: Commentary on Dar-Nimrod and Heine (2011),” 137 Psychological Bulletin 819–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haslam, Nick & Ernst, Donald (2002) “Essentialist Beliefs about Mental Disorders,” 21 J. of Social and Clinical Psychology 628–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haslam, Nick, et al. (2002) “Are Essentialist Beliefs Associated with Prejudice?” 41 British J. of Social Psychology 87–100.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hassin, R., et al., eds. (2004) The New Unconscious. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heatherton, Todd F., ed. (2003) The Social Psychology of Stigma. New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Hochstedler, Ellen (1987) “Criminal Prosecution of the Mentally Disordered: A Descriptive Analysis,” 12 Criminal Justice Rev. 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunter, Rosemary, et al. (2016) “Judging in Lower Courts: Conventional, Procedural, Therapeutic and Feminist Approaches,” 12 International J. of Law in Context 337–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Brian (2003) “Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Sentencing Departures across Modes of Conviction,” 41 Criminology 449–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, Shayne & Cauffman, E. (2008) “Juvenile Psychopathy and Judicial Decision Making: An Empirical Analysis of an Ethical Dilemma,” 26 Behavioral Sciences & the Law 151–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jordan, Kareem & Freiburger, Tina (2010) “Examining the Impact of Race and Ethnicity on the Sentencing of Juveniles in the Adult Court,” 21 Criminal Justice Policy Rev. 185–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaiser, Kimberly & Holtfreter, Kristy (2016) “An Integrated Theory of Specialized Court Programs: Using Procedural Justice and Therapeutic Jurisprudence to Promote Offender Compliance and Rehabilitation,” 43 Criminal Justice and Behavior 45–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaye, David (1999) “Respecting Genetic Privacy: The ASU-SB Conference on Law, Science, and Technology,” 40 Jurimetrics 1–8.Google Scholar
King, Michael, et al. (2014) Non-adversarial justice. Annandale, NSW: Federation.Google Scholar
Lam, Danny & Salkovskis, Paul (2007) “An Experimental Investigation of the Impact of Biological and Psychological Causal Explanations on Anxious and Depressed patients' Perception of a Person with Panic Disorder,” 45 Behaviour Research and Therapy 405–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Launis, Veikko (2000) “The Use of Genetic Test Information in Insurance: The Argument from Indistinguishability Reconsidered,” 6 Science and Engineering Ethics 299–310.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levinson, Justin, et al. (2017) “Judging Implicit Bias: A National Empirical Study of Judicial Stereotypes,” 69 Florida Law Rev. 63–114.Google Scholar
Lewis, Bradley (2012) “Recovery, narrative theory, and generative madness,” in Rudnick, Abraham, ed., Recovery of People with Mental Illness: Philosophical and Related Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 145–65.Google Scholar
Lombardo, Paul (2008) Three Generations, no Imbeciles: Eugenics, the Supreme Court, and Buck v. Bell. Baltimore, MD: JHU.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, Mark (2010) “Sample Size and Saturation in PhD Studies Using Qualitative Interviews,” 11 Forum art. 8.Google Scholar
Maxwell, Joseph (2013) Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
McGill, Ann (1998) “Relative Use of Necessity and Sufficiency Information in Causal Judgments about Natural Categories,” 75 J. of Personality and Social Psychology 70–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGuffin, P. & Murray, R., eds. (2013) The New Genetics of Mental Illness. Oxford: Butterworths-Heinemann.Google Scholar
Moore, Dawn (2006) “Translating Justice and Therapy: The Drug Treatment Court Networks,” 47 British J. of Criminology 42–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mossman, Douglas (1999) “Hired Guns, Whores, and Prostitutes: Case Law References to Clinicians of Ill Repute,” J. of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 414–25.Google ScholarPubMed
Norenzayan, Ara & Heine, Steven (2005) “Psychological Universals: What Are they and how Can we Know?” 131 Psychological Bulletin 763–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ogletree, Shirley & Archer, Richard (2011) “Interpersonal Judgments: Moral Responsibility and Blame,” 21 Ethics & Behavior 35–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pagnatarro, Marisa (2001) “Genetic Discrimination and the Workplace: Employee's Right to Privacy v. Employer's Need to Know,” 39 American Business Law J. 139–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parry, John (2005) “The Death Penalty and Persons with Mental Disabilities: A Lethal Dose of Stigma, Sanism, Fear of Violence, and Faulty Predictions of Dangerousness,” 29 Mental & Physical Disability Law Reporter 667–9.Google ScholarPubMed
Patton, Michael (2015) Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods: Integrating Theory and Practice. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
Paulhus, Delroy & Carey, Jasmine (2011) “The FAD–Plus: Measuring Lay Beliefs Regarding Free Will and Related Constructs,” 93 J. of Personality Assessment 96–104.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pennsylvania Courts (2016) “Learn: The Pennsylvania Court System,” Accessed March 21st, 2018. Retrieved from: http://www.pacourts.us/learn/.Google Scholar
Perlin, Michael (1992) “On sanism,” 46 SMU Law Rev. 373–407.Google Scholar
Perlin, Michael (2013) “Sanism and the Law,” 15 Virtual Mentor 878–85.Google ScholarPubMed
Perlin, Michael & Cucolo, Heather (2017) “‘Tolling for the Aching Ones Whose Wounds cannot Be Nursed’: The Marginalization of Racial Minorities and Women in Institutional Mental Disability Law Policing Rape Complaints,” 20 J. Gender Race & Justice 431–583.Google Scholar
Phelan, Jo (2005) “Geneticization of Deviant Behavior and Consequences for Stigma: The Case of Mental Illness,” 46 J. of Health and Social Behavior 307–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Phelan, Jo, et al. (2002) “Genes and Stigma: The Connection between Perceived Genetic Etiology and Attitudes and Beliefs about Mental Illness,” 6 Psychiatric Rehabilitation Skills 159–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phelan, Jo, et al. (2006) “Effects of Attributing Serious Mental Illnesses to Genetic Causes on Orientations to Treatment,” 57 Psychiatric Services 382–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pyun, John (2015) “When Neurogenetics Hurts: Examining the Use of Neuroscience and Genetic Evidence in Sentencing Decisions through Implicit Bias,” 103 California Law Rev. 1019–46.Google Scholar
Rachlinski, Jeffrey & Wistrich, Andrew (2017) “Judging the Judiciary by the Numbers: Empirical Research on Judges,” 13 Annual Rev. of Law and Social Science 203–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodriguez, S., et al. (2006) “Gender Differences in Criminal Sentencing: Do Effects Vary across Violent, Property, and Drug Offenses?” 87 Social Science Q. 318–39.Google Scholar
Rottman, David & Casey, Pamela (2000) “Therapeutic Jurisprudence & the Emergence of Problem-Solving Courts,” 6 Alternatives to Incarceration 27–30.Google Scholar
Schnittker, Jason (2008) “An Uncertain Revolution: Why the Rise of a Genetic Model of Mental Illness Has Not Increased Tolerance,” 67 Social Science & Medicine 1370–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Starr, Sonja (2014) “Evidence-Based Sentencing and the Scientific Rationalization of Discrimination,” 66, 803-872 Stanford Law Rev.Google Scholar
Steen, Sara, et al. (2005) “Images of Danger and Culpability: Racial Stereotyping, Case Processing, and Criminal Sentencing,” 43 Criminology 435–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steffensmeier, Darrell, et al. (1998) “The Interaction of Race, Gender, and Age in Criminal Sentencing: The Punishment Cost of Being Young, Black, and Male,” 36 Criminology 763–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strauss, Anselm & Corbin, Juliet (1990) Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Strauss, Anselm & Corbin, Juliet (1998) Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Ulmer, Jefferey (1997) Social Worlds of Sentencing: Court Communities under Sentencing Guidelines. New York: SUNY.Google Scholar
Wachbroit, R. (2000) “Genetic determinism, genetic reductionism and genetic essentialism,” In Encyclopedia of ethical, legal and policy issues in biotechnology, 352–356. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Weiner, Bernard, et al. (1997) “An Attributional Examination of Retributive Versus Utilitarian Philosophies of Punishment,” 10 Social Justice Research 431–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wexler, David (2000) “Therapeutic Jurisprudence: An Overview,” 17 Thomas M. Cooley Law Rev. 125–34.Google Scholar
Wiener, Richard, et al. (2010) “A Testable Theory of Problem Solving Courts: Avoiding Past Empirical and Legal Failures,” 33 International J. of Law and Psychiatry 417–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yzerbyt, Vincent, et al. (1997) “Social Judgeability and the Dilution of Stereotypes: The Impact of the Nature and Sequence of Information,” 23 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 1312–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Berryessa supplementary material
Download undefined(File)
File 14.9 KB