From Mild to Severe: Analysing the influence of Neurological and Psychological Disorders on Judicial Decision Making

This study looks at how judicial decision-making is affected by neurological and psychiatric diseases, specifically how judgments of criminal accountability and guilt are influenced by the type and degree of the disorder. The legal system still harbours a substantial prejudice that influences the way crimes committed by people with mental health illnesses are assessed, despite increased knowledge of these disorders. Through the examination of data from a heterogeneous set of participants serving as a stand-in jury, one discerns trends in the perceived responsibility of defendants suffering from mild and severe illnesses. The results show that people with psychological problems are more likely to experience bias about their culpability, while people with neurological diseases are more likely to experience stigma associated with criminal liability. The research also emphasises how demographic variables, such gender and level of education, have an impact on these views. The study has certain limitations, such as a small sample size and the absence of a neutral control group, but it nonetheless highlights the importance of increased legal knowledge and careful handling of situations involving mental health illnesses. To ensure that defendants with varied degrees of neurological and psychological problems are treated fairly, my results urge for judicial reforms.