When assessing guilt or judging actions, our intuitive understanding of the self plays a major role in our decisions. It is foundational in our conception of justice. As an illustration, let’s use the example of a man who has murdered his wife and two young kids. We’ll pretend you are a judge. The man in question plead guilty. All you have to do is decide his sentencing. Here are three different versions of the man and testimony, how would you sentence each version?

1. Prior to the man murdering his family he was in a car accident that resulted in him having permanent brain damage. Neuroscientists testified that the brain damage ultured the man’s behavior, making him prone to violent outbursts. Character witnesses testified that the man was never the same after the accident. 

2. The man had a troubled childhood and struggled with alcohol. In his statement he said  [I], “…couldn’t go on.” And [I], “…didn’t see any other choice.” A psychologist testified that he struggled with depression and probably had ptsd. Neighbors described him as being possessive and verbally abusive to his wife.  

3. Throughout the sentencing, the man was attentive and engaged. Character witnesses described him as being simultaneously friendly and callus. A psychologist said he fit the profile of a psychopathic. 

They all committed the same crime, but did you give them all the same sentence? 

Probably not, most people will have given a lesser sentence to Version 1, a full sentence to Version 2, and an extreme sentence to Version 3. Did your sentencing fit that profile? How would you justify your sentencing choices? 

 Let’s go through some possible rationalities for different sentencing. Regardless if you agree with the rationality presented or not, try to answer the questions on each.   

Leniency for Version 1. 

In the case of Version 1, because of the brain injury it is easy to understand that he was not in control of his actions. The person who murdered his wife and children was not really him, but an unfortunate by-product of his damaged brain. In this situation he did not choose to murder his family. It would be wrong to punish him for something out of his control.

According to Shariff AF, when people are presented with a neurological explanation for behavior, they are more likely to advocate for shorter sentencing. They are also more likely to prescribe medical intervention opposed to punitive punishment.

The statements, ‘he wasn’t himself,’ ‘she lost control,’ or ‘I was out of my mind,’ are telling. They imply that the self in question is separate from the body that commited the crime. That the body took control while the self was unable to stop it, making the body guilty and the self one of the victims. We can see this with Version 1, his damaged brain did something he himself would never do. 

Is it fair to describe Version 1 as a good person with a sick brain? 

Full sentence for Version 2. 

Generally, there is little to no sympathy for Version 2. This is possibly because Version 2’s motivations are rooted in psychology. For many people the mind is intuitively endowed with greater autonomy than the body. We can easily grasp physical differences and limitations, but the mind is amorphic, and therefore limitless. Qualities such as ‘willpower’ and ‘mental strength’ are seen as choices. If the mental-self is ‘good’, it will choose to have willpower, it will choose to be strong. It can choose not to abuse or not to kill. 

Phrases like; ‘not everyone who was abused becomes an abuser,’ demonstrate a perception of moralized mental comparability. In lue of a neurological diagnosis such as injury or schizophrenia, Version 2 is seen as having the same mental capability to choose as everyone else. Therefore should be held accountable and punished. 

Version 2 might be responding to just as much trauma as Version 1, however, Version 2’s trauma is psychological. If the mind is the self, can you separate him from his trauma? Or are people their mental illnesses? Either way, why would this make Version 2 more culpable than Version 1?

Locking Version 3 up and throwing away the key. 

Version 3 was given the label of psychopath, while this could be considered a mental disorder it is often interpreted as a ‘moral illness’. A majority of people advocate for more extreme punishments in cases where the defendant is labeled psychopathic (Berryessa, C. M., & Wohlstetter, B., 2019, Edens 2005). 

One explanation for this reaction may be concern for public safety. There is a perception that psychopaths are ticking time bombs, liable to do something horrific at any given moment. The only option is to remove them from society. 

Another is the perception that psychopaths are inherently evil. They are often described in terms of the soul or lack-there-of and are portrayed as inhuman. They are called twisted, monstrous, and wrong. They are not driven by brain damage or even mental weakness, they do horrible things because they want to, because that is who they are at the core of their being.

If there were several degrees of separation between Version 1 and his actions, then there is no perceived separation between Version 3 and his behavior. Version 3 is his behavior. Is time a factor in this perception? Version 1 had an established personality before his accident, whereas Version 3 was (more or less) born that way. Is your inherent personality more you? Does that make Version 3 more responsible than Version 1? 

What is the difference between doing something because of an ‘irresistible impulse’ to, and doing something because you ‘lost control’? While one might allow for premeditation, neither were choices. 

Would a neurological explanation of psychopathy change your perception of Version 3? 

Check out the American Psychological Association, for a better understanding of psychopathy.

Give them all the same treatment. 

Assume the self is the brain. All thoughts, all feelings, and all behaviors are products of brain function. Each of these men acted in an abnormal way, they did something horrible, something no normal person would do. Therefore, there must be something wrong or abnormal with their brain function. None of them have any more control over their brain function than you do over your spleen. If none of them had control over their actions, then all of them should receive treatment as opposed to punishment. 

Which do you have greater control over; your brain, mind, or soul? Or are they equal? 

Conclusion 

According to attribution theory, we judge others’ actions based on the perception of “controllability,” (Corrigan P. W., 2003). Whether they had a choice to do what they did or not. Studies show, people support lenient sentencing if the defendant was affected by something out of their control, such as a brain injury. Whereas little empathy is shown for people who are perceived to have control over their actions, such as in the case of substance abuse. 

We can see the effects of attribution theory playing out in our thought experiment, however applying it across the board highlights the limitations of its rationality. While ‘controlablity’ is a major factor in our conceptions of justice it does not explain the whole story. We care about people’s autonomy, but layered on top of that is a desire to punish the perceived ‘bad’ or ‘weak’ self. If we are unable to separate the self from the undesirable behavior then there is a moral indictment of who the person is, regardless of culpability. 

We do this with our language everyday, depending on how we feel about the person in question, we label them or we describe their behavior. She is a liar. She told a lie. He robbed a bank. He is a thief. She likes to drink. She is an alcoholic. One is a description, the other is pathological. One is a story, the other is an indictment. Neither speak to autonomy, however they completely change the way we understand the person in question. 

One relevant factor in this is quantity, when people repeat a behavior we are more likely to understand it as a part of who they are. However this is not always the case, far more often it is an emotive element that pushes us to identify a person with their behavior. More common still, is whether we see the self as distinct from the body or not. Taking the time to investigate our own intuitions about what makes a person who they are may help us judge our fellow citizens more fairly and consistently. 

That said, these are only a few factors in the broad concept of justice, while they are revealing they are not exclusive. If you have further insight into this topic or an alternative understanding, we would love to hear from you. Write to us at [email protected].