Derivative culpability

Abstract

I explore the question of when an agent is derivatively, rather than directly, culpable for an undesirable outcome. The undesirable outcome might be a harmful incompetent or unwitting act, or it might be a harmful event. By examining various cases, I develop a sophisticated account of indirect culpability that is neutral about controversies regarding normative ethical issues and the condition on direct culpability.     

Situationism,capacities and culpability

Philosophical Studies - The situationist experiments demonstrate that most people’s behaviour is influenced by environmental factors much more than we expect, and that ordinary people can be...     

Liability,culpability, and luck

Philosophical Studies - This paper focuses on the role of culpability in determining the degree of liability to defensive harm, and asks whether there are any restrictions on when culpability is...     

Political orientation and perceptions of adolescent autonomy and judicial culpability

This study probed general attitudes about processing youths in adult criminal court across a range of offenses, explored attitudes about age of autonomous decision‐making for several activities outside the criminal justice context, and examined the interaction between these two realms. The major finding was that adults favor adult punishment of adolescent offenders at younger ages than they favor autonomy in other decision‐making contexts; the gap is widest for those who identify themselves as conservatives. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Public attitudes about the culpability and punishment of young offenders

Opinions of 789 community adults were individually assessed, using a video-clip of an actual armed robbery and other measures, to determine whether attitudes toward the culpability and appropriate punishment of young offenders were linked to offenders' age, race, and physical appearance. Three major findings emerged: (1) community adults endorse the view that criminal choices of young offenders are influenced by their developmental immaturity and attribute more responsibility for the criminal act as the actor gets older; (2) the public has a relatively strong preference for differential treatment of juvenile and adult offenders; and (3) attitudes about culpability and punishment are not influenced by the culprit's race, physical maturity, or appearance of "toughness." Indications that punitive public opinion toward youth crime may be changing and implications for juvenile justice policy of the study's findings are discussed.     

Physical and psychological causality as determinants of culpability in sexual harassment cases

In this study a hierarchical legal model was presented to explain how observers arrive at decisions regarding culpability and disciplinary action in cases of alleged sexual harassment. Subjects read a vignette describing a sexual advance. Information about the flagrance of the request, the victim's response, and the frequency of similar encounters were manipulated in order to examine their impact on dimensions of culpability. Subjects then completed a series of Likert-type scales designed to assess the critical dimensions in the model. The findings provided support for the model, suggesting that subject's decisions regarding physical causality and psychological causality are critical factors in attribution of responsibility and that these attributions impact subsequent disciplinary decisions.     

A posteriori information effects on culpability judgments from a cross-cultural perspective

A posteriori information about the moral attributes of the victim of a crime can affect an observer's judgment on the culpability of the actor of the crime so that negative moral attributes of the victim will lead to a lower judgment of culpability. The authors found this effect of a posteriori information among 118 American and 123 Chinese participants, but the underlying mechanisms were different between the two cultural groups. The Americans considered the psychological state of the actor during the crime, whereas the Chinese considered the morality of the actor during the crime. The authors discussed these results in light of the respondents' implicit theories of morality.     

Would a neuroscience of violence aid in understanding legal culpability?

Defense attorneys in criminal cases are beginning to argue that their clients were biologically predisposed to committing their crimes and therefore were less responsible for their behavior. Indeed, if our brains cause our behavior, and our brains are the way they are because of genetic composition, insults, disease, and life experiences, it becomes difficult to argue that any punishment as justified retribution for behavior is cogent. In this essay, I address the question of whether understanding the neuroscience behind human behavior should alter our legal notion of responsibility. We will examine this query in greater detail, using violence as a case study, asking whether understanding the neuroscience underlying violent behavior impacts our notion of personal or legal culpability. I shall argue that it does not. I proceed by first briefly sketching what we know about human violence and the biology behind it. Then I turn to a quick discussion of psychopaths, their connections to violence, and what we think we know about the biology of their brains. Finally, I come to the question of whether we should consider violent people with specific brain abnormalities as mad or bad, which will feed into the question of whether such people are responsible for their criminal behavior. I conclude with some very general and very brief speculations on what this discussion has to tell us about nature of being human.     

Effects of accusations on the accuser: the moderating role of accuser culpability

Recent research has shown that people can enhance their own reputations by accusing others of faults they possess. However, it is unclear by what mechanism accusing others of one's own misdeeds helps to enhance the reputation of the accuser, and there is no evidence for boundary conditions for this devious tactic. The present research provides evidence that accusations suggest information about the accuser's values and that it is the assumed values of the accuser that are responsible for increases in the accuser's reputation. Furthermore, the present research demonstrates that accusations may only be effective in increasing an individual's reputation when the individual has faults to deflect. When an individual possesses no faults, accusations can actually damage the individual's reputation.     

Myths and stereotypes of actors involved in domestic violence: Implications for domestic violence culpability attributions

Stereotypes exist about actors involved in domestic violence, particularly women of color. It has been suggested that Black women are more aggressive and accustomed to violence than White women. Moreover, victim resistance, marital status, and perceiver’s sex have all been found to influence perceptions of domestic violence culpability. Since the 1970s, when domestic violence was acknowledged as a social problem, researchers have examined how the lay person’s perceptions of battered women and their batterers are influenced by extralegal factors. Although research on perceptions of domestic violence when White women and men are involved has increased dramatically in recent years, there is a dearth of research on perceptions of such violence when women and men of color are participants. The available findings on the influence of stereotypical notions concerning victims and batterers upon perceptions of domestic violence are examined. This review will provide the available evidence and suggest research areas where information is needed to more fully address the needs of people of color in understanding their own victimization and how actors in the legal system can guard against biased responding.     

Effects of sex role stereotyping among European American students on domestic violence culpability attributions

Effects of European American students' sex role stereotyping and domestic violence participants' race and relationship intimacy were examined for culpability attributions. In addition to a man's responsibility rating and a sentencing measure, five factors were identified from the dependent measures; these were Sympathy with Man, Incident as Abusive, Generalness of Incident, Seriousness of Incident, and Man as Abuser. Results indicated that sex role stereotyping was influential in culpability attributions, as those with traditional orientations showed a favorable bias toward the man, particularly a married man. Traditionalists provided a shorter sentence for the man and thought the incident less abusive when the woman was African American, in comparison to egalitarians. Both egalitarians and traditionalists expressed more sympathy toward the man when the woman was African American and married. Although we had anticipated higher culpability ratings for women involved in interracial relationships, we found that the European American man was thought less responsible when the woman was African American, but no differences emerged when the woman was European American. It is suggested future research examine the specific content of various stereotypic subtypes of actors involved in domestic violence and how these stereotypic subtypes bias culpability attributions.Appreciation is extended to an anonymous reviewer for helpful comments on an earlier version of this article.Portions of this research were presented at the 1994 biennial meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society, Santa Fe, NM.     

The effect of sex role stereotype,victim and defendant race,and prior relationship on rape culpability attributions

The research addressed the influence of sex role stereotypes, victim and defendant's race, and the participants' relationship on perceptions of rape culpability by white respondents. Those who held traditional sex role stereotypes believed a rape victim to be more culpable than those with egalitarian stereotypes. In addition, respondents with traditional stereotypes perceived the defendant to be less culpable and less likely to commit a similar offense. Traditional stereotypes may contribute to a more stringent criteria for deciding that rape has occurred. Overall, respondents showed a bias against black rape victims and victims who had dated a black defendant. Rape defendants who had dated a black female were considered to be less likely to commit a similar act in future; thus, the propensity to rape was considered situationally specific.Appreciation is extended to Lawrence S. Wrightsman, Nyla Branscombe, Mark Barnett, and an anonymous reviewer for comments on an earlier draft of this paper. Data was collected at Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas.     

Punishing hypocrisy: The roles of hypocrisy and moral emotions in deciding culpability and punishment of criminal and civil moral transgressors

Three experiments explored how hypocrisy affects attributions of criminal guilt and the desire to punish hypocritical criminals. Study 1 established that via perceived hypocrisy, a hypocritical criminal was seen as more culpable and was punished more than a non-hypocritical criminal who committed an identical crime. Study 2 expanded on this, showing that negative moral emotions (anger and disgust) mediated the relationships between perceived hypocrisy, criminal guilt, and punishment. Study 3 replicated the emotion finding from Study 2 using new scenarios where group agents were clearly aware of the hypocrisy of their actions, yet acted anyway. Again, perceived hypocrisy worked through moral emotions to affect criminal guilt and punishment. The current studies provide empirical support for theories relating hypocrisy and moral transgressions to moral emotions, also informing the literature on the role of moral emotions in moral reasoning and legal decision making.