Abstract
This Article provides a comprehensive-though admittedly speculative-explanation of how jurors use projection and prototyping, two simulation-based theories of mind-reading, to make mental-state attributions in criminal cases. The first two Parts explain why jurors are unlikely to use a functionalist method of mind-reading in a case that focuses on the defendant's mens rea. The next three Parts introduce projection and prototyping, describe the evidence that jurors actually use them to make mental-state determinations, and discuss the cognitive mechanism-perceived similarity between juror and defendant-that determines which one a juror will use in a particular case. The final two Parts explain why projection and prototyping are likely to result in inaccurate mental-state determinations and discuss debiasing techniques that may make them more accurate.
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.
