Table 3.
Cases not coded in the further analysis.
| Reason | Description | Number of cases |
|---|---|---|
| No discernible impact of the evidence | Brain damage was suggested but there was little detail included about the evidence, little discussion by the judge and no discernible impact on the outcome. | 75 |
| No evidence for claimed brain damage | Brain damage was suggested but it was explicitly rejected by the judge due to a lack of adequate evidence. | 19 |
| No apparent abnormality revealed by testing. | The judge comments that assessments for possible brain damage revealed no abnormalities. | 16 |
| Assessments for brain damage should be arranged by correctional authorities. | The judge's response to the issue of brain damage in the offender was to encourage correctional authorities to arrange proper assessment in order to tailor rehabilitation programs properly. | 12 |
| Comment on the absence of any brain damage as an explanation. | The judge explicitly points out that there is no evidence of brain damage in order to show that it (1) furnishes no explanation for behavior, memory gaps, or apparent intoxication, or (2) provides no argument that statements or pleas were involuntary. | 8 |
| Complaint about the lack of neuroscientific evidence | The judge observes that there should have been assessments for possible brain damage, or adjourns or delays proceedings in order to await this type of evidence. | 6 |
| Concern that incarceration would be particularly harmful due to an offender's brain damage. | The judge considers the possibility that incarceration would be a problem due to an offender's brain damage because incarceration would aggravate a medical condition, put the offender's safety at risk (eg due to mistreatment by other prisoners) or impede rehabilitation. | 6 |
| Lack of brain damage is interpreted as positive for possible rehabilitation efforts. | The judge notes that the absence of brain damage will facilitate treatment and rehabilitation efforts, or allows for more optimism about the potential success of those efforts. | 2 |
| Brain damage suffered in the criminal event or later in jail is considered as mitigating. | The judge notes that the offender has already been punished by injuries incurred during the criminal act, or has suffered an injury in jail (usually while awaiting trial). | 2 |
| TOTAL | 146 | |