Abstract
ABSTRACT Legal processes very often require judges and jurors to make determinations as to what mental states other individuals were in at a particular point in time, i.e., what they intended, believed, considered etc. However, there are two ways that one can try to determine what mental states another person was or is in. One is to apply the information that one has about human psychology in the way that one applies a theory. The other is to mentally pretend that one is in the same situation as the other individual and see what mental states one would have oneself, before attributing these to the other individual. I show that the two methods can lead to different conclusions in the same circumstances and urge that this is a very serious problem.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
