Inferring the criminal mind: Toward a bridge between legal doctrine and psychological understanding

Abstract

Criminal law is concerned with defining when people commit prohibited acts accompanied by culpable mental states (criminal intent, knowledge, recklessness, or negligence). An experiment focused on how laypeople, asked to serve as “jurors,” interpret and apply legal instructions on the definitions of culpable mental states. The results pinpoint differences between legal mental state definitions that jurors are expected to apply in deciding criminal cases and laypersons' understanding of those mental states. Laypeople do not comprehend mental state distinctions that are differentiated in legal doctrine. The results are discussed in terms of attribution theory, and practical suggestions are made that may be useful to attorneys.