ArticleThe journal of forensic psychiatry & psychology
Judges' views on evidence of genetic contributions to mental disorders in court.
Article in The journal of forensic psychiatry & psychology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Brief report: A survey of California state court judges on a case vignette involving a defendant with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD).Research in autism · 2026Article
- To Use or Not to Use: No Consensus on Whether and How to Apply Genetic Information in the Justice System.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
This preliminary analysis assesses how judges view the use of behavioral genetics evidence on genetic influences to mental disorders in court. Twenty-one semi-structured interviews, analyzed using constant comparative analysis, were conducted with California trial court judges. Most judges reported the beneficial effects of this evidence being presented in court, particularly as a mitigating factor for sentencing. Yet some judges viewed it as an aggravating factor and expressed concerns about genetic privacy. Judges described initial reactions to being potentially presented with evidence on genetic influences to mental disorders as apprehension, curiosity, and sympathy. Judges also reported putting significant trust in experts on these issues. Findings suggest some judges are skeptical of this evidence, but largely open to its presentation. Sympathetic reactions may result in mitigating attitudes of some judges. As judges significantly trust experts, some judges could also be overly trusting of genetic evidence and expert opinion on these issues.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.