Neuroscience and Criminal Justice (feat. Dr. Colleen Berryessa)Neuroscience and Criminal Justice (feat. Dr. Colleen Berryessa)
Lobes and Robes
Dr. Colleen Berryessa talks with Colin Saldanha and Gustavo Ribeiro about how beliefs about biology, identity and luck shape criminal sentencing. The conversation looks at bias among judges and jurors, the impact of scientific education, and what this means for responsibility, punishment and rehabilitation.
43:39•2 Apr 2026
Brains, Bias and Justice: How Neuroscience Shapes Sentencing
Episode Overview
- Essentialist beliefs about a person’s fixed “core” can fuel both harsher punishments and support for more individualised, rehabilitative responses.
- Sex crimes and hate crimes tend to be seen as revealing who someone is, while offences like theft or vandalism are viewed as more situational.
- Evidence of severe trauma, abuse or adverse biology can backfire, leading to what Dr. Berryessa calls a counterintuitive form of victim blaming.
- Judges and jurors are susceptible to stereotyping when mental disorders or genetic influences are highlighted, which can push sentencing toward more punitive outcomes.
- People with formal science education may sentence less harshly when given neurobiological explanations, suggesting that scientific literacy can change how free will and responsibility are judged.
“It’s almost like this counterintuitive case of victim blaming, where someone’s traumatic background makes people see them as bad at their core.”
What can we learn from those who have battled addiction, crime, and stigma through the lens of neuroscience and law? This episode of Lobes and Robes brings together law, psychology, and brain science to look at how people in the justice system are judged and punished. Dr. Colleen Berryessa from Rutgers University chats with hosts Colin Saldanha and Gustavo Ribeiro about how perceptions of biology and identity shape sentencing.
She explains essentialist thinking – the belief that people have a fixed core that defines who they are – and how that can push people toward both harsher and more rehabilitative punishments at the same time. As she puts it, essentialism can make people see someone as “a kind of person” rather than a person who has done a particular thing.
The conversation digs into why sex crimes and hate crimes are often treated as if they reveal a person’s inner nature, while offences like theft or vandalism are seen as more situational. Dr. Berryessa also talks about her work on “genetic luck” and how people who have suffered extreme abuse, trauma, or fetal alcohol exposure can still be blamed more, not less. She describes this as a “counterintuitive case of victim blaming” that can fuel support for very severe punishments.
Judges and juries come under the microscope too. Studies with judges show that genetic explanations for mental disorders can trigger stereotyping and more punitive views. At the same time, jurors with formal science education tend to support less severe sentences when they hear neurobiological explanations, suggesting that scientific literacy can shift how people think about free will and responsibility.
Anyone interested in addiction, mental health, and criminal justice will find plenty to reflect on here: How fair is it to treat people as if they all start from the same place? And what might change if courts put the person first and the label second?
Do you want to link to this podcast?
Get the buttons here!
More From This Show
The latest episodes from the same podcast.
Related Episodes
Similar episodes from other shows in the catalogue.