Matching Items (3)
Filtering by
- Genre: Masters Thesis
Description
Neuroimaging has appeared in the courtroom as a type of `evidence' to support claims about whether or not criminals should be held accountable for their crimes. Yet the ability to abstract notions of culpability and criminal behavior with confidence from these imagines is unclear. As there remains much to be discovered in the relationship between personal responsibility, criminal behavior, and neurological abnormalities, questions have been raised toward neuroimaging as an appropriate means to validate these claims.
This project explores the limits and legitimacy of neuroimaging as a means of understanding behavior and culpability in determining appropriate criminal sentencing. It highlights key philosophical issues surrounding the ability to use neuroimaging to support this process, and proposes a method of ensuring their proper use. By engaging case studies and a thought experiment, this project illustrates the circumstances in which neuroimaging may assist in identifying particular characteristics relevant for criminal sentencing.
I argue that it is not a question of whether or not neuroimaging itself holds validity in determining a criminals guilt or motives, but rather a proper application of the issue is to focus on the way in which information regarding these images is communicated from the `expert' scientists to the `non-expert' making decisions about the sentence that are most important. Those who are considering this information's relevance, a judge or jury, are typically not well versed in criminal neuroscience and interpreting the significance of different images. I advocate the way in which this information is communicated from the scientist-informer to the decision-maker parallels in importance to its actual meaning.
As a solution, I engage Roger Pielke's model of honest brokering as a solution to ensure the appropriate use of neuroimaging in determining criminal responsibility and sentencing. A thought experiment follows to highlight the limits of science, engage philosophical repercussions, and illustrate honest brokering as a means of resolution. To achieve this, a hypothetical dialogue reminiscent of Kenneth Schaffner's `tools for talking' with behavioral geneticists and courtroom professionals will exemplify these ideas.
This project explores the limits and legitimacy of neuroimaging as a means of understanding behavior and culpability in determining appropriate criminal sentencing. It highlights key philosophical issues surrounding the ability to use neuroimaging to support this process, and proposes a method of ensuring their proper use. By engaging case studies and a thought experiment, this project illustrates the circumstances in which neuroimaging may assist in identifying particular characteristics relevant for criminal sentencing.
I argue that it is not a question of whether or not neuroimaging itself holds validity in determining a criminals guilt or motives, but rather a proper application of the issue is to focus on the way in which information regarding these images is communicated from the `expert' scientists to the `non-expert' making decisions about the sentence that are most important. Those who are considering this information's relevance, a judge or jury, are typically not well versed in criminal neuroscience and interpreting the significance of different images. I advocate the way in which this information is communicated from the scientist-informer to the decision-maker parallels in importance to its actual meaning.
As a solution, I engage Roger Pielke's model of honest brokering as a solution to ensure the appropriate use of neuroimaging in determining criminal responsibility and sentencing. A thought experiment follows to highlight the limits of science, engage philosophical repercussions, and illustrate honest brokering as a means of resolution. To achieve this, a hypothetical dialogue reminiscent of Kenneth Schaffner's `tools for talking' with behavioral geneticists and courtroom professionals will exemplify these ideas.
ContributorsTaddeo, Sarah (Author) / Robert, Jason S (Thesis advisor) / Marchant, Gary (Committee member) / Hurlbut, James B (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2014
Description
Responsibility for academic outcomes is an important factor to consider within the study of student motivation, yet measures for the construct remain elusive and inconsistent. The present study uses a new measure developed by Lauermann and Karabenick to assess students' sense of responsibility for their academic outcomes. This study examined the relationship between perceived academic control, implicit theory of intelligence, and student responsibility. Results were based on a sample of 152 undergraduate students. A significant relationship between perceived academic control and student responsibility was established. Results also indicated a significant association between implicit theory of intelligence and student responsibility; however, contrary to hypotheses, implicit theory did not mediate the relationship between perceived academic control and student responsibility.
ContributorsFishman, Evan Jacob (Author) / Nakagawa, Kathryn (Thesis advisor) / Jenefer, Husman (Committee member) / Elsie, Moore (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2012
Description
As automation becomes more prevalent in society, the frequency that systems involve interactive human-automation control increases. Previous studies have shown accountability to be a valuable way of eliciting human engagement and reducing various biases, but these studies have involved the presence of an authority figure during the research. The current research sought to explore the effect of accountability in the absence of an authority figure. To do this, 40 participants took part in this study by playing a microworld simulation. Half were told they would be interviewed after the simulation, and half were told data was not being collected. Eleven dependent variables were collected (accountability, number of resources shared, player score, agent score, combined score, and the six measures of the NASA- Task Load Index), of which statistical significance was found in number of resources shared, player score, and agent score. While not conclusive, the results suggest that accountability affects human-automation interactions even in the absence of an authority figure. It is suggested that future research seek to find a reliable way to measure accountability and examine how long accountability effects last.
ContributorsWilkins, Adam (Author) / Chiou, Erin K. (Thesis advisor) / Gray, Robert (Committee member) / Craig, Scotty (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2019