Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31835512›Full record

ArticleBehavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland)2019

To Use or Not to Use: No Consensus on Whether and How to Apply Genetic Information in the Justice System.

Fatos Selita, Robert Chapman, Yulia Kovas

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Fatos SelitaDepartment of Psychology, Goldsmiths, University of London, London SE14 6NW, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1843-7908
Robert ChapmanDepartment of Psychology, Goldsmiths, University of London, London SE14 6NW, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1696-1514
Yulia KovasDepartment of Psychology, Goldsmiths, University of London, London SE14 6NW, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9633-6374

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Little is known about the public's attitudes towards applying genetic information in the justice system. This study aimed to extend previous research to explore this among the general public and those with training in law. Data were collected from over 10,000 participants, including 486 lawyers and law students. We analysed eight available relevant items from the International Genetic Literacy and Attitudes Survey (iGLAS). The majority of participants viewed genetic information as relevant to justice. For example, 65% believed that we should make provisions (legal and policy) to buffer the effects of genetic disadvantage on individuals, and almost 60% believed that genetic information should be taken into account in sentencing. At the same time, many participants (70%) disagreed that genetic influences on behaviour negate free will. The results of the correlational analyses suggest that people who consider genetic information relevant in one context tend to consider it relevant across all aspects of the justice system, including in sentencing, crime prevention and access to justice. Overall, the results suggest that views on the use of genetics by justice systems are complex and widely varied. Further research is needed to understand these complex views.

Indexed as

free willgenetic informationjustice systemsentencing

Identifiers

PMID31835512
PMCPMC6960806

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.