Researchers have found that the more gruesome a description of a crime is, the more the person hearing the description thinks the perpetrator should be punished. However, if the act was unintentional, the description did not change the severity judged as fair.
When the responses were analyzed, the researchers found that the manner in which the harmful consequences of an action are described significantly influences the level of punishment that people consider appropriate: When the harm was described in a graphic or lurid fashion then people set the punishment level higher than when it was described matter-of-factly. However, this higher punishment level only applied when the participants considered the resulting harm to be intentional. When they considered it to be unintentional, the way it was described didn't have any effect.
Abstract: http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nn.3781.html
(Score: 3, Funny) by Tork on Tuesday August 05 2014, @05:19PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 3, Informative) by frojack on Tuesday August 05 2014, @05:28PM
Why is this interesting?
Its the very basis of the insanity defense, the very basis for the requirement of "intent" in murder charges vs manslaughter charges.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Sir Garlon on Tuesday August 05 2014, @06:49PM
It's interesting because, according to TFA, the researchers have not only observed the effect but identified the mechanisms in the brain responsible for the respective kinds of decision-making.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Tuesday August 05 2014, @05:55PM
"Fault?" I thought. "What fault?" I assumed it was talking a fault in the participants' response (or brains). "Intent" would have been a less ambiguous choice.
The original article's headline was a little clearer:
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 2) by buswolley on Tuesday August 05 2014, @06:00PM
At first I thought that a cognitive "fault override" was found that for emotionally driven decisions to punish.
I was disappointed.
subicular junctures
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 05 2014, @06:52PM
who didn't know this already?
(Score: 2) by mendax on Tuesday August 05 2014, @11:19PM
You ought to read the press releases of DA's regarding the convictions they achieve. Often they border on being slander and defamation. They do it to justify the harsh punishments served up upon those they prosecute. There are many good people who make big mistakes, perhaps because of addiction or other compulsive behavior who deserve to be punished for their crimes but not have their characters be assassinated in such a way.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Thursday August 07 2014, @03:08PM
So if you want someone punished in the most extreme manner available, describe their actions as luridly as possible. A point that's always been intuitive to lawyers and activists, but now shown as a natural human behavior.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.