Intuitions Of Justice Research Articles

Altruistic decisions following penetrating traumatic brain injury.

The cerebral correlates of altruistic decisions have increasingly attracted the interest of neuroscientists. To date, investigations on the neural underpinnings of altruistic decisions have primarily been conducted in healthy adults undergoing functional neuroimaging as they engaged in decisions to punish third parties. The chief purpose of the present study was to investigate altruistic decisions following focal brain damage with a novel altruistic decision task. In contrast to studies that have focused either on altruistic punishment or donation, the Altruistic Decision Task allows players to anonymously punish or donate to 30 charitable organizations involved with salient societal issues such as abortion, nuclear energy and civil rights. Ninety-four Vietnam War veterans with variable patterns of penetrating traumatic brain injury and 28 healthy veterans who also served in combat participated in the study as normal controls. Participants were asked to invest $1 to punish or reward real societal organizations, or keep the money for themselves. Associations between lesion distribution and performance on the task were analysed with multivariate support vector regression, which enables the assessment of the joint contribution of multiple regions in the determination of a given behaviour of interest. Our main findings were: (i) bilateral dorsomedial prefrontal lesions increased altruistic punishment, whereas lesions of the right perisylvian region and left temporo-insular cortex decreased punishment; (ii) altruistic donations were increased by bilateral lesions of the dorsomedial parietal cortex, whereas lesions of the right posterior superior temporal sulcus and middle temporal gyri decreased donations; (iii) altruistic punishment and donation were only weakly correlated, emphasizing their dissociable neuroanatomical associations; and (iv) altruistic decisions were not related to post-traumatic personality changes. These findings indicate that altruistic punishment and donation are determined by largely non-overlapping cerebral regions, which have previously been implicated in social cognition and moral experience such as evaluations of intentionality and intuitions of justice and morality.10.1093/brain/awy064_video1awy064media15758316955001.

Moral Foundations, Intuitions of Justice, and the Intricacies of Punitive Sentiment

Research on punitive attitudes has, so far, focused largely on people's retributive attitudes toward offenders. However, a large theoretical body of research indicates that concerns about different types of offenses and victims may be just as important in structuring punitive attitudes. Particularly, Moral Foundations Theory suggests that distinct punitive attitudes may be based in intuitive moral concerns (“moral foundations”) about offenses that victimize individuals, groups, and the “divine,” referring to bodily purity or sanctity. In this study, I develop measures of what I term “victim-centered punitiveness,” and use data from a nationwide survey of adult Americans (N = 915) to compare the sources of offender- and victim-centered punitiveness. As expected, different moral foundations shape offender- and victim-centered punitiveness in different ways, suggesting that they have distinct intuitive, moral bases. Other factors, including racial resentment, also have distinct effects on each type of punitiveness.

'Life Without Parole' Under Modern Theories of Punishment

Life without parole seems an attractive and logical punishment under the modern coercive crime-control principles of general deterrence and incapacitation, a point reinforced by its common use under habitual offender statutes like three strikes. Yet, there is increasing evidence to doubt the efficacy of using such principles to distributive punishment. The prerequisite conditions for effective general deterrence are the exception rather than the rule. Moreover, effective and fair preventive detention is difficult when attempted through the criminal justice system. If we really are committed to preventive detention, it is better for both society and potential detainees that it be done through a civil system that openly admits its preventive justification and goals. Further, recent research shows that deterrence and incapacitation-based distributions of punishment commonly conflict not only with principles of deontological desert but also with lay people's intuitions of justice. Research also suggests that, by allowing such injustices, the criminal justice system undermines its moral credibility with the community it governs and thereby undermines its ability to harness the more powerful forces of normative crime-control. This preference for a desert-based distribution of punishment is reflected in the American Law Institute's recent amendment of the Model Penal Code – its first amendment in 48 years – which set desert as the dominant distributive principle for sentencing. Is LWOP an appropriate sentence under that desert principle? The core principle for a desert distribution is this: greater punishment should be imposed upon an offender of greater blameworthiness and less punishment upon an offender of lesser blameworthiness. Because LWOP represents the endpoint of the imprisonment continuum, it can be an appropriate sentence only for the most egregious case (or, if the death penalty is available, the second most egregious case). To use it more broadly is to violate desert by punishing equally cases of identifiably different degrees of blameworthiness, thereby trivializing the greater blameworthiness of the more serious cases. In other words, a desert distributive principle would not demand LWOP in a case if there has been, or reasonably could be, a noticeably more egregious case. This suggests LWOP ought to be a rare sentence, reserved only for the most blameworthy offenders.

Why Justice Matters

This paper assesses Brian Barry's attempt in Why Social Justice Matters to argue the importance of social justice. Barry seeks to dismiss the ideological misunderstandings that have prevented recognition of the importance of social justice. He also suggests that a robust conception of social justice will be needed to guide policies that solve the problems of the modern world. I argue that the issue of social justice has suffered neglect because of the influence of different ideas of social justice than Barry's rather than a misunderstanding among politicians and media pundits of generally shared intuitions of justice. These different ideas of justice must be shown to be wanting. In doing this, I argue that any adequate theory of social justice must address the issue of the fairness of starting points in peoples’ lives. I point out that any such theory requires such revolutionary change that it contradicts the presuppositions of public policy and thus cannot serve to guide public policy solutions to the problems that Barry wants addressed. I argue that a ‘non-ideal’ theory of justice and principles for making unjust societies fairer, with more modest proposals for change, will better serve as a guide to public policy.

The Rome Statute, Penalties & the Spectrum of Severity

This paper addresses the issue of whether or not so-called inadequate penalties at the national level could serve as the basis for ICC intervention under Articles 17 and 20 of the Rome Statute. Having considered the arguments that inadequate penalties could allow the ICC to prosecute the same defendant for the same conduct under Articles 17 and 20 of the Rome Statute, the paper examines when penalties may fairly be deemed inadequate using research regarding all humans' shared intuitions of justice. The paper goes on to argue that, based on the work of Paul Robinson and others, Articles 17 and 20 of the Rome Statute should not be construed to permit re-trial at the ICC where the penalty imposed was at the appropriate place on that state's spectrum of severity. Where penalties are on the appropriate point of the society's punishment continuum, they should not be deemed inadequate, and therefore should not be said to be shielding the defendant. Once this idea has been presented, the paper focuses on how the spectrum of severity determination is to be made.