Hostname: page-component-5db58dd55d-8lnk4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-31T12:01:26.462Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Adaptationism and intuitions about modern criminal justice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2012

Michael Bang Petersen
Michael Bang Petersen*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science and Government, Interacting Minds Centre, Aarhus University, DK-8000 Aarhus C, Denmark. michael@ps.au.dkhttp://pure.au.dk/portal/en/michael@ps.au.dk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Research indicates that individuals have incoherent intuitions about particular features of the criminal justice system. This could be seen as an argument against the existence of adapted computational systems for counter-exploitation. Here, I outline how the model developed by McCullough et al. readily predicts the production of conflicting intuitions in the context of modern criminal justice issues.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 36 , Issue 1 , February 2013 , pp. 31 - 32
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013

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

References

Burnette, J. L., McCullough, M. E., Van Tongeren, D. R. & Davis, D. E. (2012) Forgiveness results from integrating information about relationship value and exploitation risk. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 38:345–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cullen, F. T., Fisher, B. S. & Applegate, B. K. (2000) Public opinion and crime and corrections. Crime and Justice 27:1–79.Google Scholar
Cullen, F. T. & Gendreau, P. (2000) Assessing correctional rehabilitation: Policy, practice, and prospects. Criminal Justice 3:109–75.Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, G., Todd, P. M. & The ABC Research Group. (1999) Simple heuristics that make us smart. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lieberman, D. & Linke, L. (2007) The effect of social category on third party punishment. Evolutionary Psychology 5:289–305.Google Scholar
McCorkle, R. C. (1993) Research note: Punish and rehabilitate? Public attitudes toward six common crimes. Crime and Delinquency 39(2):240–52.Google Scholar
Petersen, M. B. (2009) Public opinion and evolved heuristics: The role of category-based inference. Journal of Cognition and Culture 9(3):367–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petersen, M. B., Sell, A., Tooby, J. & Cosmides, L. (2010) Evolutionary psychology and criminal justice: A recalibrational theory of punishment and reconciliation. In: Human morality and sociality: Evolutionary and comparative perspectives, ed. Høgh-Olesen, H., pp. 72–131. Palgrave MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petersen, M. B., Sell, A., Tooby, J. & Cosmides, L. (2012) To punish or repair? Evolutionary psychology and lay intuitions about modern criminal justice. Evolution and Human Behavior. [Published Online, July 16, 2012.] doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2012.05.003.Google Scholar
Roberts, J. V. (1992) Public opinion, crime, and criminal justice. Crime and Justice 16:99–180.Google Scholar
Roberts, J. V. & Hough, M., eds. (2002) Changing attitudes to punishment. Willan.Google Scholar
Roberts, J. V. & Stalans, L. J. (2004) Restorative sentencing: Exploring the views of the public. Social Justice Research 17(3):315–34.Google Scholar
Robinson, P., Kurzban, R. & Jones, O. D. (2007) The origins of shared intuitions of justice. Vanderbilt Law Review 60:1633–88.Google Scholar