MedTrace Logo

Biocriminology and the Adjudication of Criminal Responsibility: Is There a Consensus Among Scientists' Verdicts?

NCT05007314 · Status: COMPLETED · Phase: NA · Type: INTERVENTIONAL · Enrollment: 160

Last updated 2022-08-16

No results posted yet for this study

Summary

Because of the evolving nature of psychology research, non-scientists are more likely to struggle or misinterpret evidence regarding a person's psychological state. Misconceptions may thus be highly prevalent within the justice system, leading to negative consequences for people with psychological or neurobiological disorders. At the same time, no research has been conducted to compare the punishment perspectives of non-scientists, that typically make sentencing decisions, to scientists who possess a more advanced understanding of human biology and behavior.

Conditions

  • Criminalism

Interventions

BEHAVIORAL

Biocriminological Evidence

Participants in each of the two main groups see a case with and a case without a neurobiological explanation for criminal offending.

Sponsors & Collaborators

  • Leiden University Medical Center

    lead OTHER

Study Design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
BASIC_SCIENCE
Masking
DOUBLE
Model
PARALLEL

Eligibility

Min Age
18 Years
Max Age
65 Years
Sex
ALL
Healthy Volunteers
Yes

Timeline & Regulatory

Start
2021-07-01
Primary Completion
2022-07-01
Completion
2022-07-01

Countries

  • Netherlands

Study Locations

More Related Trials

Read the full study record

This page highlights key information. For complete eligibility criteria, study locations, investigator contacts, and the full protocol, visit the original record on ClinicalTrials.gov.

View NCT05007314 on ClinicalTrials.gov