Group items tagged

Page 1 929 DIALOGUE Cognitive Processes Shaped by the Impulse to Blame Joshua Knobe † In his incisive and thought-provoking paper "Cognitive Foundations of the Impulse to Blame," Lawrence Solan points to a surprising fact about the cognitive processes underlying attributions of blame. 1 This surprising fact is that almost all of the processes that we use when trying to determine whether or not a person is blameworthy are also ones that we sometimes use even when we are not even considering the issue of blame. 2 Only a very small amount of processing is used exclusively when we are interested in questions of blame. This point can be made vivid with a simple example. Suppose that we witness a terrible accident and then assign an investigator to answer the question: "Why did this accident occur?" This investigator spends many months gathering evidence, formulating hypotheses, and considering arguments of various types. Finally, he comes back with a definite answer. And now suppose we tell him that we also want an answer to a second question, namely: "Was anyone to blame for this accident?" The investigator probably won't have to spend another few months answering this new question. It appears that almost all of the work has already been done; the investigator can simply take the results he has already obtained, do a little extra thinking, and come up with an answer. † Princeton University. I am grateful to Lawrence Solan and Gilbert Harman for helpful comments on an earlier draft. 1 Lawrence M. Solan, Cognitive Foundations of the Impulse of Blame, 68 B ROOK . L. R EV . 1003 (2003). 2 Id. at 1004. Page 2 930 BROOKLYN LAW REVIEW [Vol. 71:2 Solan provides support for this initial intuition through a sophisticated analysis of the cognitive processes that underlie attributions of blame. Specifically, he shows that attributions of blame rely in a crucial way on judgments about mental states and about causal relations. 3 He then shows that we would have made

Page 1 929 DIALOGUE Cognitive Processes Shaped by the Impulse to Blame Joshua Knobe † In his incisive and thought-provoking paper "Cognitive Foundations of the Impulse to Blame," Lawrence Solan points to a surprising fact about the cognitive processes underlying attributions of blame. 1 This surprising fact is that almost all of the processes that we use when trying to determine whether or not a person is blameworthy are also ones that we sometimes use even when we are not even considering the issue of blame. 2 Only a very small amount of processing is used exclusively when we are interested in questions of blame. This point can be made vivid with a simple example. Suppose that we witness a terrible accident and then assign an investigator to answer the question: "Why did this accident occur?" This investigator spends many months gathering evidence, formulating hypotheses, and considering arguments of various types. Finally, he comes back with a definite answer. And now suppose we tell him that we also want an answer to a second question, namely: "Was anyone to blame for this accident?" The investigator probably won't have to spend another few months answering this new question. It appears that almost all of the work has already been done; the investigator can simply take the results he has already obtained, do a little extra thinking, and come up with an answer. † Princeton University. I am grateful to Lawrence Solan and Gilbert Harman for helpful comments on an earlier draft. 1 Lawrence M. Solan, Cognitive Foundations of the Impulse of Blame, 68 B ROOK . L. R EV . 1003 (2003). 2 Id. at 1004. Page 2 930 BROOKLYN LAW REVIEW [Vol. 71:2 Solan provides support for this initial intuition through a sophisticated analysis of the cognitive processes that underlie attributions of blame. Specifically, he shows that attributions of blame rely in a crucial way on judgments about mental states and about causal relations. 3 He then shows that we would have made

Page 1 Revised: 1/2003 Victim of Crime Act Victim Assistance Grant Program Commonwealth of Massachusetts State Program Guidelines for FY2004 Table of Contents Introduction Authority I. Legislative and Funding History A. 1982 President's Task Force on Victims B. 1988 Reauthorization of VOCA C. 1993 Amendments D. 1994 Amendments E. 1995 Amendments F. 1996 and 1997 Amendments G. 1999 and 2002 Appropriations H. Funding to Massachusetts II. Victim Population A. Priority Victim Populations 1. Child Abuse 2. Adult Sexual Assault 3. Domestic Violence 4. Survivors of Homicide Victims B. Other Victim Populations III. Agency and Program Eligibility Criteria A. State or Non Profit Standing B. Demonstrate Record of Effective Services C. Matching Contributions D. Volunteers E. Coordinated Public and Private Efforts F. Assist with Victim Compensation G. Comply with VOCA Provisions and Guidelines H. Client-Counselor Confidentiality I. Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion J. Provide Services to Victims of Federal Crimes K. Provide Services to Crime Victims at No Charge L. VOCA Guidelines Training M. Non-Discrimination Page 2 Revised: 1/2003 1. Civil Rights 2. Disabilities N. Certification of Drug-Free Workplace O. Abide by Additional Eligibility Criteria IV. VOCA Eligible Services A. Allowable Direct Costs 1. Services which respond to the emotional and physical needs 2. Costs directly related to providing direct service 3. Services and activities that assist the primary and secondary victims 4. Services directed to the needs of victims within the CJ system 5. Costs necessary and essential to providing direct services 6. Services which assist crime victims with managing practical problems 7. Professional fees are allowed only under special circumstances B. Other Related Allowable Costs 1. Skills Training for Staff 2. Training Materials 3. Training Related Travel 4. Equipment and furniture that is necessary and essential 5. Advanced Technologies 6. Food and/o

Page 1 Revised: 1/2003 Victim of Crime Act Victim Assistance Grant Program Commonwealth of Massachusetts State Program Guidelines for FY2004 Table of Contents Introduction Authority I. Legislative and Funding History A. 1982 President's Task Force on Victims B. 1988 Reauthorization of VOCA C. 1993 Amendments D. 1994 Amendments E. 1995 Amendments F. 1996 and 1997 Amendments G. 1999 and 2002 Appropriations H. Funding to Massachusetts II. Victim Population A. Priority Victim Populations 1. Child Abuse 2. Adult Sexual Assault 3. Domestic Violence 4. Survivors of Homicide Victims B. Other Victim Populations III. Agency and Program Eligibility Criteria A. State or Non Profit Standing B. Demonstrate Record of Effective Services C. Matching Contributions D. Volunteers E. Coordinated Public and Private Efforts F. Assist with Victim Compensation G. Comply with VOCA Provisions and Guidelines H. Client-Counselor Confidentiality I. Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion J. Provide Services to Victims of Federal Crimes K. Provide Services to Crime Victims at No Charge L. VOCA Guidelines Training M. Non-Discrimination Page 2 Revised: 1/2003 1. Civil Rights 2. Disabilities N. Certification of Drug-Free Workplace O. Abide by Additional Eligibility Criteria IV. VOCA Eligible Services A. Allowable Direct Costs 1. Services which respond to the emotional and physical needs 2. Costs directly related to providing direct service 3. Services and activities that assist the primary and secondary victims 4. Services directed to the needs of victims within the CJ system 5. Costs necessary and essential to providing direct services 6. Services which assist crime victims with managing practical problems 7. Professional fees are allowed only under special circumstances B. Other Related Allowable Costs 1. Skills Training for Staff 2. Training Materials 3. Training Related Travel 4. Equipment and furniture that is necessary and essential 5. Advanced Technologies 6. Food and/o