Authority dependence and judgments of utilitarian harm

Three studies tested the conditions under which people judge utilitarian harm to be authority dependent (i.e., whether its right or wrongness depends on the ruling of an authority). In Study 1, participants judged the right or wrongness of physical abuse when used as an interrogation method anticipated to yield useful information for preventing future terrorist attacks. The ruling of the military authority towards the harm was manipulated (prohibited vs. prescribed) and found to significantly influence judgments of the right or wrongness of inflicting harm. Study 2 established a boundary condition with regards to the influence of authority, which was eliminated when the utility of the harm was definitely obtained rather than forecasted. Finally, Study 3 replicated the findings of Studies 1-2 in a completely different context—an expert committee’s ruling about the harming of chimpanzees for biomedical research. These results are discussed as they inform ongoing debates regarding the role of authority in moderating judgments of complex and simple harm. 2013 Elsevier B.V. © All rights reserved.

The Effect of Health and Penal Harm on Aging Female Prisoners' Views of Dying in Prison

With tougher sentencing laws, an increasing number of individuals are finding themselves spending their final years in life in prison. Drawing on a sample of 327 women over the age of 50 incarcerated in 5 Southern states, the present study investigates the relationship between numerous health variables and the Templer Death Anxiety Scale (TDAS). Qualitatively, the article also provides personal accounts from inmates that serve to reinforce death fears when engaging the prison health care system. Participants reported a mean of 6.40 on the TDAS indicating a substantial degree of death and anxiety when compared to community samples. both mental and physical health measures were important indicators of death anxiety. Qualitative information discovered that respondents' concerns about dying in prison were often influenced by the perceived lack of adequate health care and the indifference of prison staff and other instances of penal harm.

Sticks, Stones and Words: Emotional Harm and the English Criminal Law

This article discusses the rule that criminal liability does not normally attach for the causing of emotional harm or mental distress in the absence of proof of a 'recognised psychiatric injury'. It considers what is involved in the diagnosis of psychiatric injury, and to what extent the difference between such injury and 'ordinary' mental distress is one of degree rather than one of kind. It reviews the situations in which the law already criminalises the infliction of emotional harm without proof of psychiatric injury, and assesses the policy arguments for drawing the distinction in the normal case. The article concludes that the law can and should adopt a more flexible approach to cases of this sort.