The Land That Time Forgot? Planetary Health and the Criminal Justice System

Abstract

Planetary health is a transdisciplinary concept that erases the dividing lines between individual and community health, and the natural systems that support the wellbeing of humankind. Despite planetary health’s broad emphasis on justice, the promotion of science-based policies, and stated commitments to fairness, equity, and harm reduction, the criminal justice system has largely escaped scrutiny. This seems to be a major oversight, especially because the criminalization of mental illness is commonplace, and the system continues to be oriented around a prescientific compass of retribution and folk beliefs in willpower, moral fiber, and blameworthiness. Justice-involved juveniles and adults are funneled into landscapes of mass incarceration with ingrained prescientific assumptions. In non-criminal realms, such as obesity, there is a growing consensus that folk psychology ideas must be addressed at the root and branch. With this background, the Nova Institute for Health convened a transdisciplinary roundtable to explore the need for a ‘Copernican Revolution’ in the application of biopsychosocial sciences in law and criminal justice. This included discussions of scientific advances in neurobiology and omics technologies (e.g., the identification of metabolites and other biological molecules involved in behavior), the need for science education, ethical considerations, and the public health quarantine model of safety that abandons retribution.

1. Introduction

“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in a net of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever effects one directly effects all indirectly”.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., 1963 [1].

Planetary health is a holistic framework that dissolves the artificial boundaries between personal wellbeing, community health, and the natural systems that sustain life on Earth [2]. The planetary health paradigm emphasizes evidence-informed policies and practices [3] and maintains a stated commitment to honesty, fairness, kindness, humanity, wisdom, and justice [4]. Justice is not peripheral to planetary health—it is foundational. This is reflected in the Planetary Health Pledge, an updated Hippocratic Oath adopted by allied health professionals, which includes the affirmation: “I will advocate for equity and justice” [5]. Even a basic Google Scholar search of “planetary health + justice” yields thousands of results, with particular concentrations in environmental, climate, economic, social, and health justice.

Yet, the criminal justice system—perhaps one of the clearest sites where systemic injustice plays out—has been largely overlooked within the planetary health paradigm [6]. This absence is particularly striking given the well-documented harms of mass incarceration, the criminalization of mental illness, and excessively punitive practices such as long-term solitary confinement and capital punishment [7,8,9]. Poverty and financial debt are criminalized at large scales [10,11]. Climate change and environmental degradation can lead to debt bondage, with the subsequent risks of criminalization due to debt defaulting [12].

The impacts of incarceration extend far beyond prison walls. Families and communities are fractured. Lives are shortened. Futures are foreclosed [13]. Beyond the social and emotional toll, the sprawling prison–industrial complex is resource-intensive and energy-hungry, significantly contributing to the global carbon footprint [14,15]. From a purely financial perspective, the direct and indirect costs of crime in the United States (US) are estimated be over 4 trillion USD per year [16]. While the US might be an outlier in its bloated carceral systems and high rates of justice-involved persons, crime is a tremendous financial burden for most countries [17]. This will likely worsen. For example, modeling shows that climate change-associated weather events and temperature shocks will lead to millions of additional crimes [18,19,20]. Moreover, heat-related incidents of violence and self-harm in carceral settings have been reported [21].

While Global North countries differ in their rehabilitation ideals and investments, retributive punishment often guides decision making, especially in the United States [22]. Scholars within the fields of law and criminal justice routinely defend retribution and punishment, with quotes such as “they suffer because they deserve it” [23] and “the conceptual notion of pain is a model to embrace rather than to avoid. Punishment should not be pleasant and should serve a formidable purpose. Pain, although not a direct goal, begets remorse, introspection, and repentance” not difficult to find [24]. As stated by legal philosopher Denis Hawkins in Modern Law Review, “on a superficial view it seems kinder to think of reformation alone and to forget about retribution, but in the end, this is to forget moral responsibility…the normal adult has a certain ultimate responsibility for his deliberate actions and, if he acts wrongly, deserves his punishment. This recognition is due to the dignity of the human person” [25]. The words “deserve” and “repentance” in these quotes speak to ancient ideas of just desserts, moral fiber, moral shortcomings, and moral responsibility.

Underpinning the justification for retributive punishment is the idea that, other than extremely rare exceptions (e.g., the non-scientific, non-medical legal category of ‘insanity’), all humans are rational actors, capable of reason, and endowed with free will and a more-or-less evenly distributed ability—as the Supreme Court of the United States stated in Morissette v. United States—“to choose between good and evil” [26]. As synthesized by renowned law professor Meir Dan-Cohen, criminal law has traditionally operated by “the Kantian conception of the responsible human subject as the noumenal self, characterized exclusively by a rational free will unencumbered by character, temperament, and circumstance” [27]. The latter part of the quote, and especially the word ‘unencumbered’, is important because it uncouples the individual and their assumed free will from biopsychosocial sciences (e.g., adverse/positive lived experiences, social determinants, genetics, environmental exposures, and brain architecture).

Insofar as the courts maintain significant distance from quantum leaps in neuroscience, neuromicrobiology, behavioral genetics, exposome sciences, and the developmental origins of health and disease (DOHaD) construct, they can remain attached to the folk psychology idea of rational free will. However, with voluminous advances in biopsychosocial sciences, including those which challenge the foundations of retributive punishment, critics suggest that the criminal justice system will need to engage in ever more creative strategies to maintain its scientifically unencumbered status [28,29]. Some argue that if a court was to truly consider the causes of the causes, all the way down, from the events that happened mere minutes or hours before a criminal action, to those that are transgenerational, intersecting with behavioral genetics and current brain architecture, “there’s not a single crack of daylight to shoehorn in free will” [30].

While there is a massive amount of daylight between the widely accepted folk psychology idea of largely unencumbered free will, and neurobiologist Robert Sapolsky’s view that free will does not exist at all [31], the collation of contemporary research certainly points toward significant constraints on agency. Although still a minority, scholars from various disciplines are arguing that society should consider what a criminal justice system might look like if folk psychology ideas of willpower were abandoned, and agency constraints were acknowledged [32,33,34,35]. We note that crime is often viewed as a form of risky behavior; that is, a person decides to take on the risk after perceiving the outcomes associated with the illegal behavior [36]. Risky behaviors as a broad term include excess alcohol consumption, tobacco use, cannabis use, or early sexual activities. Adverse life experiences and socioeconomic marginalization increase the odds that engagement with early life risky behavior will translate into justice involvement [37].

2. Nova Transdisciplinary Discussion

With this background, the Nova Institute for Health convened a roundtable event to discuss emergent science and explore the need for a ‘Copernican Revolution’ in the application of biopsychosocial sciences in law and criminal justice (Figure 1). If willpower and moral fiber are illusory concepts, as some claim, or at the very least, if the constraints on free will and agency are much stronger than current courtroom and carceral assumptions, what would public safety look like? How are polygenic, microbiome, and omics technologies challenging prescientific assumptions? Why do folk psychology beliefs in willpower and moral fiber hold so much sway? What can we learn from the shifting science of obesity vs. widespread folk psychology beliefs? Does science education make a difference to punitive attitudes, and what are the views of lawyers and judges? What are the ethical implications of social isolation that is based on the risk(s) of future harms and dangerousness, as advocated in the non-retributive public health quarantine model of criminal justice? What does rehabilitation look like in a carceral environment that acknowledges constraints in free will and agency?

Here, we open a dialog on these important questions, and although fully elucidated answers require future research and multistakeholder discourse, we suggest that things in need of significant repair do not get fixed by being left alone. Tinkering around the edges does not reach the core problems. Indeed, the planetary health concept seeks out the root causes of interconnected health problems, and their social determinants [38]. In the context of planetary health, criminal justice systems in the United States and elsewhere need repair, and it will require more than tinkering to address the injustices that represent a threat to justice everywhere. The discussions that took place during the roundtable, and expanded upon here, are through the lens of changemaking and normative inquiry.

Before taking a deeper look at some of the aforementioned questions, we begin with a brief sortie into the evolving science of obesity. Of course, persons living with obesity do not represent a criminal danger to society, and behaviors associated with obesity are obviously lawful and do not encroach on others. So why start here? We do so because obesity is an exemplar of the discriminatory consequences of enduring folk psychology assumptions; as the research discussed below indicates, if a person living with obesity was justice-involved, they would likely experience additional assumption-based punitive judgements. Human history is replete with “normative” assumptions (and subsequent persecution, prosecution, and/or punishment) about differences in the behavior and cognition of fellow humans—assumptions that were subsequently toppled by biological sciences. Epilepsy is not evil [39]. There is no such thing as a schizophrenogenic mother, as previously claimed by Freudian pseudoscientists [40]. What makes obesity of interest in this context is that the clash between outdated folk psychology and scientific advances is unfolding in real time.

3. Moral Fiber, Willpower, and Obesity

Folk psychology refers to the “commonsense” or “everyday” intuitive understanding and rationalizing of human behaviors among lay non-expert populations. A person uses their own cognitive systems to simulate the cognition of others. That is, an individual assigns intentional states (especially beliefs and desires) to others in order to predict and explain their behavior [41]. Among commonly held folk psychology beliefs is the idea that because humans can tap into their free will, each individual is causally, financially, and morally responsible for their behavior [42]. In the field of law, those who defend the punitive system argue that its reliance upon folk psychology is a necessity that cannot be abandoned: “The act of punishment not only decrees social condemnation but incapacitates because it assumes that those who acted wrongly will choose to do so again unless they bear the full weight of shame society assigns to criminal conduct. By necessity, behavior judged criminal is thusly considered by its nature to be willful in a folk psychological sense” [43].

Folk psychology beliefs are associated with stereotypes and trait attributions that inform an individual’s expectations of the behavior of others [44]. The widely held—but scientifically invalid—belief that obesity is a manifestation of a lack of moral fiber, willpower, and/or the full application of personal agency, is rooted in the same folk psychology assumptions that use blameworthiness to justify retributive punishment. Indeed, research shows that individuals who strongly believe in free will are more likely to blame people living with obesity or schizophrenia, likely because they view these conditions as controllable through personal agency [45]. Similar findings are seen in the context of addiction, where belief in personal agency (rather than understanding addiction as a neurobiological disease) is associated with stronger attributions of moral responsibility [46]. In mock jury and trial research, overweight individuals—especially women—are more likely to be judged as blameworthy, assumed to be repeat offenders, and to be found guilty [47,48]. Moreover, research using police records supports the idea that higher body mass index increases the likelihood of moral judgment and discrimination (i.e., manifest in arrest and/or summons risk) in so-called purity crimes such as prostitution [49].

Contemporary biopsychosocial science tells us that obesity has little to do with willpower [50,51], and much to do with factors such as neurobiology, the endocrine system, and gut microbiota, as they intersect with socioeconomic determinants in an environment dominated by inexpensive hyperpalatable foods [52,53,54]. There are notable overlaps and bidirectional relationships between obesity and mental disorders [55]. The experience of obesity and widespread ‘fatphobia’ intersects with other systems of oppression and discrimination, such as sexism, racism, and classism [56,57]. Recent surveys in the United States reveal that 75% of adults believe that the application of “willpower” is the primary path to weight loss [58] and 39% believe that obesity is primarily a matter of self-control [59]. This misguided “common sense” notion that weight loss is merely a matter of exercising more willpower remains deeply entrenched in both public opinion and much of the medical profession [60]. In the United Kingdom, one survey showed that three out of four adults blame parents for childhood obesity [61], and in the United States, 69% of doctors expressed a similar opinion [62].

The convergence of science has motivated experts in obesity and metabolic diseases to move from the sidelines and enter into focused communication that directly tackles personal and moral responsibility narratives. Recently, an international scientific consensus statement has emphasized the urgent need to dismantle outdated folk psychology beliefs: “Challenging and changing widespread, deep-rooted beliefs, longstanding preconceptions, and prevailing mindsets requires a new public narrative of obesity that is coherent with modern scientific knowledge” [63]. The absurdity of the moral failing narrative becomes clear when one considers the dramatic global rise in obesity over the past four decades. To maintain that obesity stems from a sudden and widespread loss of willpower—while strategically ignoring scientific evidence that suggests otherwise—is to engage in magical thinking. In the United States, the sudden rise in obesity rates has been particularly apparent in the professional realm that vigorously adheres to folk psychology beliefs—the legal field [64].

In any case, it is clear that the endurance of outdated folk psychology beliefs, including those related to everyday blame and punishment, are clashing with scientific knowledge. Obesity is one among many of such clashes. In the case of non-suicidal self-injury, individuals engaging in self-harm behavior often describe the onset of such behavior as driven by unpremeditated and uncontrollable impulses, and research points toward a neurobiologically rooted impairment in impulse control [65].

Evidence shows that people in higher socioeconomic positions are more likely to adhere to the folk psychology belief that persons living with obesity or mental disorders have controllability and personal responsibility over the onset and duration of their conditions [66,67,68]; part of the relationship between income and stigma might be found in the phenomenon of social dominance orientation [69], a topic we will discuss shortly. Blame and folk psychology stigma is associated with a stronger desire for social distance from individuals with disorders [70], and those with higher incomes are more likely to desire social distance and stigmatize others [71,72]. Here, the carceral system might play a convenient role in satisfying such desires, especially when research indicates that folk psychology beliefs in free will alleviate the distress otherwise associated with administering punishment [73]. Inside the carceral system, personnel with stronger beliefs in individual agency are less likely to agree with the position that solitary confinement harms mental health (despite an overwhelming body of evidence demonstrating such harms) [74].

4. Advances in Polygenic, Microbiome, and Omics Sciences

“People who struggle to feel sated suddenly don’t, effectively giving “someone the willpower of those lucky enough to have won the genetic lottery,” said [neuropsychologist] Dr. Brierley” [75].

Shifts away from the notions of willpower and agency in obesity have not been occurring in a neuroendocrinological vacuum. The quote above, from a recent New York Times article entitled “What New Weight Loss Drugs Teach Us About Fat and Free Will,” emphasizes that revolutionary glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor (GLP-1) agonist drugs are further upending folk psychology ideas [75]. The GLP-1 agonist semaglutide and related drugs are highly effective in treating obesity and type 2 diabetes [76]. Remarkably, the effectiveness of these agents does not appear to be determined by genetic factors previously linked to obesity [77]. While the precise neurobiological mechanisms have yet to be fully elucidated, there is little doubt that GLP-1 agents are operating through multiple sites within the central nervous system [78]. Since obesity has been linked to antisocial personality disorder, aggressive behavior, conduct disorder, and several dissociable forms of impulsivity [79,80,81], and prospective cohort research finds relationships between obesity and a higher rate of lifetime criminal behavior (independent of race) [82], simple narratives of self-control (absent neurobiology and genetics) are no longer tenable [83]. Yet, the mechanistic pathways might run through a variety of factors, including marginalization [84], food insecurity, and subpar nutrition [85,86,87]. The consistent consumption of ultra-processed and fast food has been bidirectionally associated with anger, aggression, and impulsivity that lacks premeditation [88,89].

In any case, there is increasing evidence indicating that once dysregulated, the metabolic hormones ghrelin, leptin, and adiponectin appear capable of contributing to pathological impulsivity [90]. The potential benefits of GLP-1 agents to other “willpower” conditions outside of obesity, including those that involve impulsivity and/or aggression and potential justice involvement, such as substance use disorders (e.g., alcohol and drugs), has been of interest to researchers for some time [91,92]; the available evidence is very encouraging [93,94]. In a study drawing from the US Department of Veterans Affairs databases, GLP-1 agents were associated with a reduced risk of substance use, psychotic disorders, seizures, and neurocognitive disorders [95]. Multiple clinical trials and mechanistic studies examining GLP-1 agents in drug, alcohol, and tobacco use, are ongoing [96].

Occurring in tandem with the massive advances in the neuroendocrinological understanding of impulsive behaviors are equally impressive discoveries in behavioral genetics, neuromicrobiology, and related omics breakthroughs. While the early-2000s promise of single candidate gene explanations for paths to justice involvement (e.g., through aggression or schizophrenia) have not lived up to the hype [97,98], a polygenic approach is proving fruitful. Here, a large enough population size can allow for the aggregation of multiple variants into a polygenic risk score [99]. Moreover, the approach permits the scrutiny of gene x environment interactions [100]. The emergent findings indicate that aggression shares genetic etiology with ‘uncaring’ and ‘unemotional’ traits, and differences in glutamatergic, dopaminergic, and neuroendocrine signaling [101]. The effect size of polygenic indices on childhood externalizing behavior appears to be significant [102]. Multiple potential pleiotropic genetic loci can help explain the overlaps between antisocial behavior and various mental disorders [103]. Environmental factors can magnify polygenic risk; for example, harsh parenting in the home has been linked to higher social aggression in adolescents who have a higher polygenic risk for antisocial behavior [104]. That is, a polygenic architecture is not independent of positive or adverse experiences. Obviously, the genetically influenced path to externalizing behavior, disinhibition, social aggression, and antisocial behavior in general, can tumble forward into other behaviors that increase the risk of justice involvement, including substance use [105].

Remarkable advances in microbiome sciences are also challenging the assumptions of willpower and moral responsibility [106]. For example, courts in the United States and Belgium have been forced to dismiss driving while intoxicated (DWI) charges because the defendants proved that they were manufacturing significant amounts of absorbable alcohol through carbohydrate and gut microbiota interactions, absent of any oral alcohol consumption [107]. Since gut microbes produce many chemicals with psychotropic properties, these criminal DWI cases, involving so-called auto-brewery syndrome, are likely a harbinger of a new era of legalome science. The term legalome refers to the application of microbiome and omics science in forensic psychiatry and criminal law. Omics technologies allow researchers to pair objective markers (i.e., from genomics, epigenomics, transcriptomics, and metabolomics) with aspects of cognition and behavior [108,109]. For example, metabolomics can help identify various gut microbe-produced metabolites, chemicals that might have significant involvement in behavior and neuropsychiatric risk.

The mechanisms by which gut microbiota and phages influence the brain and behavior continue to be illuminated. As recently summarized [110,111], gut bacteria are deeply involved in the production and degradation of neuroactive compounds such as gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA), serotonin precursors, cortisol, short-chain fatty acids, and a wide array of other metabolites. Many of these substances can cross the blood–brain barrier and directly influence neural activity. Through the immune system, microbiome-related shifts in systemic inflammation—especially involving pro-inflammatory cytokines—can affect both brain function and behavior. Neural pathways, including the vagus and spinal nerves, provide direct lines of communication between the gut and the brain, allowing microbial signals to influence the brain regions responsible for emotion regulation and decision making [106]. Microbes also play a crucial role in the production and absorption of key nutrients, including vitamins, omega-3 fatty acids, and polyphenols, along with their bioactive metabolites [112,113]. Gut microbes are involved in glucose control, lipid metabolism, and at the molecular level, appear to influence brain-specific processes such as glycosylation [114]. In addition, microbial activity shapes bile acid metabolism, generating diverse metabolites that interact with host receptors throughout the body. Under healthy conditions, gut microbes help maintain the integrity of the intestinal barrier. However, when this microbial balance is disrupted—an imbalance known as dysbiosis—the intestinal barrier can become compromised. This may, in turn, affect the blood–brain barrier, reducing its ability to exclude harmful molecules, pathogens, and substances [115,116]. In some cases, microbes may even reach the brain in the absence of major trauma or advanced disease [117], leading to neurological outcomes that were once dismissed as purely psychosomatic in origin. Given the available research on gut microbes in glucose control [118], heart rate variability [119], resting heart rate [120], and omega-3 status [121], the microbiome might provide greater mechanistic understandings of findings within biological criminology, such as low resting heart rate [122], omega-3 as beneficial in aggression [123], and hypoglycemia as a provocateur of antisocial behavior [124].

Returning to the subject of omics, it is important to underscore that researchers are no longer confined to examining genomics or metabolomics in isolation. Today, with the advances in technology, and less expensive and more widely available techniques (e.g., high-throughput sequencing combined with statistical and machine learning applications), the generation and integration of large-scale multi-omics data is feasible [125,126]. Massive amounts of information can be gleaned from quantitative biomolecular readouts (via blood, exhaled breath, saliva, and/or fecal samples) in large cohorts. This allows researchers to consider polygenic risk scores in concert with measurable metabolites and DNA methylation sites, bringing us closer to strong objective markers of risk for aggression [127]. While the gut microbiome appears to be involved in human social decision making [128], and the gut microbial signatures of violence, risk taking, temperament, addiction, and antisocial behavior are emerging [129,130,131,132], the multi-omics approach will help to further narrow the mechanistic gap between correlation and causation [133]. Researchers estimate that between 40% and 60% of the variance in aggressive, criminal, and antisocial behavior can be explained by genetic factors [134,135]; the heritability of aggressive behavior has recently been reported to be highest around age 12 (0.74), decreasing to about 0.40–0.50 throughout life [136]. Obviously, these findings do not translate as ‘genes are destiny.’ Epigenomics and other omics-based technologies are unveiling the mechanisms by which gene expression is regulated, including the ways in which various exposures might determine gene expression [137]. This is of relevance to understanding risk and matters of prevention and rehabilitation [138,139,140]. There is also an opportunity to examine how the ‘labeling’ of young people as ‘criminals’ or ‘deviant’ increases the odds of subsequent justice involvement [141].

Omics-based technologies and methods sit within the larger frame of the exposome, a term used to describe the study of the total accumulated environmental exposures (both detrimental and beneficial) that can help predict the biological responses of the “total organism to the total environment” over time [142]. In this way, omics can assist in the large-scale determination of the associations between exposures and population-level outcomes, yet at the same time help to shape personalized approaches to prevention and intervention [143]. In the case of criminology, where it is well known that justice involvement does not sit on a level socioeconomic playing field, exposome science might help account for the ways in which disadvantage, adversity, marginalization, and poverty, get “under the skin” (i.e., manifest in biological processes) [144]. In turn, this can help guide more precise policy interventions [145,146] and further challenge the one-size-fits-all folk psychology notion of moral blameworthiness. To better understand the mechanisms by which the folk psychology status quo remains in place within the criminal justice system, an exploration of personality features and system justification is important, a topic we turn to next.

5. Belief in a Just World: Social Dominance Orientation

The belief in a just world is a personality feature in which the individual views the world, on the whole, to be an orderly place where good things happen to good people and people ‘get what they deserve, and deserve what they get’ [147]. Higher scores on ‘belief in a just world’ scales have been linked to placing blame on and stigmatizing people living with obesity, poverty, mental illness, and/or communicable diseases [148,149,150,151]. Of importance to our discussion of folk psychology and the justice system, belief in free will is positively associated with belief in a just world and higher levels of authoritarianism [152].

Related to the belief in a just world is system justification. Here, individuals are motivated to believe that even though social, political, economic, and criminal justice realities may not be perfect for everyone, the status quo is, on the whole, fair, and just. These fair and just beliefs are held even when there is an abundance of evidence indicating that a system is unjust. It is easy to imagine that individuals who have ‘succeeded’ in contemporary systems, achieving wealth, status, and avoiding justice involvement, would engage in higher levels of system justification and endorse the status quo. This income/status relationship to system justification has certainly been observed [153,154]. Yet, system justification theory also demonstrates that unjust and unfair systems can be set up in such a way that marginalized and disadvantaged individuals and communities rationalize and lend support to the status quo. This palliative function of system justification, and the way in which it reduces uncertainty, ambiguity, and negative affect, while improving relational needs, is described in detail elsewhere [155].

Remarkably, there has been very little scrutiny of criminal justice system operations and folk psychology adherence through the lens of system justification [156]. While there have been calls for criminal justice reform, much of this attention has been directed at police use of force, militarized police funding, and carceral systems [157,158,159]. There is an absence of discourse related to the wellspring of blame attribution and the fact that the vast majority of legal applications are system-maintaining [160,161]. Despite the marginalization of science and the rejection of the idea that unjust and inequitable social systems (e.g., through poverty or poor educational opportunity) contribute to crime, most justice systems in Global North countries enjoy very high levels of perceived legitimacy [162]. Of course, there are significant policy differences, with Nordic countries maintaining lower punitive and retributive worldviews [163,164]. Nevertheless, some experts in the field of system justification have directed their attention to the criminal justice system, concluding that it is replete with system justification under a façade of objectivity. The experts conclude: “We believe that legal scholars and practitioners could benefit from attending to the ways in which system justification motivation shapes not only the decisions made by judges, juries, and other legal actors, but also the social structures and institutions in which these actors are embedded… because system-legitimizing goals were integral to the original design of the legal system itself, overcoming inertial resistance to social change will be no easy feat” [162].

Related to the belief in a just world and system justification is the psychological construct of social dominance orientation (SDO). Various SDO scales capture beliefs concerning the acceptability of hierarchies, the entitlement of high-status groups to dominate other groups, and/or attitudes toward the normative maintenance of social and economic inequality. Since SDO is linked to the attraction to hierarchies and hierarchy-enhancing professions, it is perhaps unsurprising that among US-based university students, those pursuing law degrees had the highest levels of SDO [165]. It is also worth noting that among the US Senators who held office in the 101st to 105th Congresses (January 1989 through December 1998), the dark personality subtype (including social dominance and desire for money and power) was most prevalent and associated with longer tenure in political office, though less legislative success [166]. During this period, the majority of US Senators—between 54% and 63%—were trained lawyers [167,168].

Why should SDO be of concern to reform efforts? Higher SDO scores are associated with a greater tolerance of group-based inequalities, harsh punishment in criminal justice scenarios, lower empathy, and less concern for matters of social justice [169]; moreover, SDO is associated with hypervigilance to threats—real and perceived—that might compromise privileged status and its benefits [170]. Researchers have shown that higher SDO diminishes awareness that power gained from the dominant social position is being used for personal gains [171,172]. In the context of punishment, experimental research shows that those with a higher baseline SDO are more likely to punish others when placed into a high-power situation [173].

Taken as a whole, it is easy to see how a cycle of high levels of attraction to a hierarchy-enhancing profession such as law could lead to system justification, the maintenance of high status, and a status quo around the ideas of folk psychology and punishment. While research specific to actors in the justice system is needed, in the general population, higher social status and SDO positively predict system-justifying beliefs [174]. However, there is one small band of lawyers within the criminal justice system that operate in ways that do not defend the system—public defenders. Indeed, research shows that public defenders score lower on SDO than an average juror [175]. This demonstrates that all lawyers cannot be painted with the same brush, and in terms of understanding how prescientific assumptions are upheld, it is an area worthy of intense scrutiny. Only 3.3% of US defense attorneys consider addiction in substance use disorders to be a personal failure of self-control, and less than 1% consider addiction to be a moral lapse [176]. It is likely that prosecutors and judges (most of who were former prosecutors) maintain a different view. It is also worth pointing out that SDO appears to have significant heritability, with genetic links to political attitudes and support for antiegalitarian policies that limit the distribution of power and resources [177,178]. It is possible that gene x environment interactions are at play in differential paths to hierarchy-accentuating structures and system justification.

6. Copernican Revolution

“There has been a Copernican Revolution in the science of the mind but the criminal law’s definition of insanity, when set up as a defense, has remain unchanged…this conflict between static legal concepts and the flow of dynamic psychology is not a problem peculiar to our own [United Kingdom] jurisprudence; it is one now worldwide and clearly a fundamental problem of the administration of justice” George S. Godwin, Lawyer and Social Commentator, 1957 [179].

Prior to 1543, it was commonly believed that the Earth was a static sphere at the center of the universe. Nicolaus Copernicus saw it differently, and although his model of a Sun-centered system took time to gain widespread acceptance, its implications and inevitable confrontation with authoritative texts and ideology were revolutionary. As noted in the quote above, from George S. Godwin, many academic disciplines and branches of science and medicine have since undergone their own Copernican Revolutions. When Godwin wrote in 1957, opining that Copernican Revolutions in neuropsychology essentially bounce off the law’s tungsten-strength adherence to the idea of a static Earth at the center of the universe, the Copernican Revolution of the double helix and heredity had yet to unfold. Sophisticated neuroimaging had yet to arrive, and electroencephalograms were the closest approximation of peering into the brain. The relationships between gut microbes and neuropsychiatry would have still been considered fantastical. Omics technologies and advanced sequencing techniques were a distant dream. Yet, there was enough available evidence for Godwin to recognize that the continued deflection of science would be unjust.

Despite some tinkering around the edges, the deflection of science remains largely unchanged seven decades removed from Godwin’s observations. In the United States, the tinkering included the consideration of neuropsychological sciences (i.e., brain maturity) in early-2000s rulings that ended capital punishment (and mandatory life sentences without parole) for juveniles. While certainly important, this is far from a Copernican Revolution. Despite all the evidence surrounding the far-reaching effects of childhood abuse and trauma, courts in the United States rarely consider evidence of childhood abuse during sentencing phases, let alone as a factor that would determine trial outcomes [180]. Law and the justice system has yet to undergo its own Copernican Revolution. According to recent critics, the foundational beliefs of the justice system remain insecure and prescientific, and at the same time, fail to solve the very problems that the system claims to address: “NASA would never have entrusted its mission to fly to the moon to people who believed that the Earth was flat…a criminal justice system will only succeed in addressing the problem of crime if it has understandings of human nature and criminality that are based on solid empirical foundations” [29].

As noted, the revolution that Copernicus started did not happen overnight. He challenged deeply held dogma and thought that was entrenched within power social systems. By some accounts, the intellectual revolution lasted almost 170 years, through Isaac Newton’s laws of motion and gravity [181]. It has been argued that no matter how much contemporary science demonstrates constraints on agency and unmasks the illusions of moral responsibility as hangovers from a prescientific age, it will remain hampered by the entrenched social power of the criminal justice system [29]. While often overlooked, there are profit-generating and psychological “win” motives to the punishment-based status quo [182,183]. Based on system justification science, the path to a Copernican Revolution within criminal justice is unlikely to be cleared and trodden by actors attracted to hierarchical power and/or hypervigilant to threats to the status quo. Beyond the limited knowledge on public defenders, there is a need for more research that scrutinizes the motivations and personality features of those drawn to and working within criminal law [184,185]; there is need for a greater understanding of the extent to which powerful actors (i.e., prosecutors and judges) might be motivated to marginalize select scientific evidence [186,187]. Within public health and evidence-informed medicine, the very definition of anti-science is the “motivated rejection of scientific knowledge” [188]. Since it is claimed that the “law is a teacher” for society [189], it might be worthwhile asking if the law’s adherence to folk psychology normalizes the assumptions of willpower and blameworthiness in spheres external to courts and carceral settings.

As mentioned earlier, there have been consistent calls for criminal justice reform in the US and elsewhere, especially over the last two decades in which the public health consequences of the “War on Crime” and the “War on Drugs” have been tabulated [190]. Recent years have brought bipartisan reform efforts with changes that have included the scaling back of mandatory sentencing laws, limiting sentencing enhancements, expanding carceral alternatives for non-violent crimes, reducing the revocations of community supervision for technical violations, and increasing early release options [191]. There has also been a patchwork of intervention successes—including restorative justice (discussed later) efforts, and programs that focus on community reintegration, employment, family, health (including mental health), housing, substance abuse, supervision compliance, and/or recidivism. The problem, though, is that very few of these efforts have been subjected to detailed study (with strong scientific methodology) for “what works” and funding in program evaluation remains minimal [192]. One area of optimism is at the prosecutorial level, with increased recognition that prosecutors hold significant sway in the curbing or perpetuation of mass incarceration. Here again, there is a need for high-quality scientific scrutiny of prosecutorial reform, organizational processes, and outcomes [193]. Evidence from the Juvenile Justice-Translational Research on Interventions for Adolescents in the Legal System (JJ-TRIALS; a cooperative multi-center research initiative) underscores the complexity of justice involvement and rehabilitative/reentry needs [194,195]; individualized care is critical, and group-based interventions may differ across geographies and cultures. Research from the Justice Community Opioid Innovation Network (JCOIN) also demonstrates how scientific research can help bridge the policy gap in health and justice [196,197]. Reform efforts cannot be conflated with simply cutting costs, as research shows this can result in an exacerbation of problems, or “mass incarceration on the cheap” [198].

7. The Need for Science Education

Experts in the field of forensic and legal psychology have argued that a foundational issue is the lack of scientific training within mandated law school education and standardized testing [199]. In the United States, under court rulings known as the Daubert trilogy, judges have decided that judges should be the gatekeepers of the acceptability of science in the courts; the problem is that judges often lack scientific knowledge [200,201,202]. The lack of science literacy in the law field is an ongoing concern [203,204], especially as it relates to advances in forensic evidence and challenging non-science cases (i.e., presumed “science” such as comparative bullet lead analysis, or bitemarks) that may have previously led to unwarranted convictions [205]. Yet, the idea of including neuropsychological sciences, behavioral genetics, social exposome science, and multi-omics technologies, as part of scientific literacy that challenges the very underpinnings of moral agency and punishment, is less often discussed [29,30].

Since system-justifying positions in the legal profession often lean on the term normative (i.e., the system is a product of widely held public beliefs) to describe its status quo operations, one path to change might be investments in science education among the public. Here, it is worth noting the experimental research involving adults with college degrees, where each subject was asked to consider various sentencing options after considering a vignette of aggravated assault; the study participants were also asked to rate the perceived degree of free will maintained by the vignette offender. Three scenarios were presented, each with similar details of the actual assault case. What differed was i. the absence of a defense, ii., a defense in which genetics were linked to impulse control, iii., a defense in which evidence of a significant traumatic brain injury was documented in past medical records. The results showed that, compared with those with degrees in law, sociology, business, politics, and history, graduates with a science degree (e.g., biology, medicine, or pharmacology) showed a preference for less severe sentencing options when neurobiological influences were part of the defense. Importantly, the less punitive decision was mediated by the degree to which they believed the offender was less responsible and had less free will [206]. This work suggests that the path to progress might be paved by science education, and specifically that which might challenge folk psychology.

Part of the educational effort might include an enhanced awareness of the ways in which individuals gravitate toward science as a way to explain their own behaviors, but not the behavior of others. For example, research shows that individuals are accepting of science that explains their own immorality, but that openness to scientific explanation does not extend to the immoral behavior of external actors [207]. In addition to this phenomenon of ‘strategic ignorance’, there is also a need to challenge folk psychology ideas that presume that genetic and biological markers of criminal behavior automatically equate to a permanency of dangerousness. That is, if the general public accept the advances in science as legitimately undermining a defendant’s free moral agency, then a potential fallout might be that the same individual is perceived to represent a permanent danger to society because they will always be so afflicted [208,209]. In other words, chipping away at folk psychology beliefs might, if not holistically approached, have a paradoxical effect of longer sentences. Returning to the topic of GLP-1 agents, despite the scientific advances and widespread use, independent observers judge GLP-1 users negatively [210], especially when the observer is under the impression that obesity can be controlled through diet and exercise [211]. Similar judgements directed at users of prescription psychotropic agents are a frequent reason for non-trial or discontinuing potentially helpful medications [212].

It appears, then, that framing matters: When research subjects consider neuroscientific evidence and the contextual sentencing rationale of retribution, they significantly decrease their sentencing recommendations. On the other hand, when the sentencing rationale is in isolation for the protection of society, sentencing recommendations increase in length [213]. There is a need to reconcile mock juror studies with real-world outcomes. For now, the available evidence indicates that neither the severity of mental disorder nor the presence of multiple comorbid disorders has a significant effect on actual sentencing outcomes [214].

8. The Public Health Quarantine Model

The public health quarantine model of criminal justice reimagines the justice system with prevention as its core purpose. Instead of focusing on retribution, it seeks to address the social, environmental, and developmental roots of criminal behavior. This model is grounded in skepticism toward the idea that individuals possess full moral responsibility in the traditional “just deserts” sense—arguing instead that our actions are largely shaped by factors beyond our control [215,216]. The model is anchored by the undeniable overlaps between the well-known social determinants of health, and those of criminal behavior. Like John Snow’s removal of the Broad Street pump to stop a cholera outbreak, the model aims to intervene at the “causes of the causes,” many of which stem from social conditions and adverse childhood experiences.

The model notes the long reach of adverse experiences, extending to intergenerational levels—for example, children whose parents reported four or more adverse experiences are nearly twice as likely to have an arrest history by age 25 compared with those whose parents had none or very few of such experiences [217]. The model also acknowledges the victim–offender overlap, the evidence-based reality that many people in the justice system were victims before they became offenders [218]. Victimization, it suggests, can be contagious, creating cycles of harm [219]. However, it also highlights the importance of positive childhood experiences—safe, stable, nurturing environments, at home and in the neighborhood—that go beyond simply avoiding trauma. These experiences are linked to a lower risk of delinquency, better self-control, and improved mental health in adulthood [220].

Though it borrows quarantine from the language of infectious disease, the model insists that government restraint must be ethical and proportionate. Just as it would be wrong to mistreat someone quarantined for illness, it is wrong to inflict suffering on individuals in detention beyond what is needed for public safety. Retributive punishment is ruled out. Any form of incapacitation must be justified by an ongoing risk of harm and should be accompanied by efforts at rehabilitation. Even in cases where someone cannot be safely released, the model offers no justification for misery—only for minimal restraint necessary to prevent harm [221]. Despite its name, the public health quarantine model has largely escaped scrutiny by the public health community. Yet it is likely that many in public health and prevention science would support its emphasis on early life investment and the reduction in unjust punishment.

One of the model’s most challenging aspects is the use of preventive detention based on the risk of future harm. The model argues that only those who pose a serious threat should be incapacitated, with the burden of proof on the state to justify continued detention through regular review. Critics rightly note the difficulty here: predicting human behavior is far more complex than predicting disease transmission. Who will decide who is detained? What kind of evidence will be used?

The model likely requires risk assessment tools, but current instruments are flawed. Traditional and algorithmic tools—especially for violence—are prone to racial bias. Even advanced methods like machine learning may inherit biases from inputs like arrest records, which often reflect systemic discrimination rather than actual criminal behavior. Widely used tools such as the Static-99 or Violence Risk Appraisal Guide would be rated as only “fair” or “poor” if judged by medical standards for diagnostic accuracy. Some researchers suggest that future tools combining neuroimaging and EEG data could improve predictions [222]. But these technologies are still emerging and carry their own ethical risks. For the public health quarantine model to succeed, neuroprediction should enhance social protection and at the same time safeguard individual liberty; risk assessment must be not only accurate, but also just [223]. With the expansion of the evidence base, biological markers, including microbiome signatures and blood-based chemicals, might add to traditional risk assessments, and neuroimaging/EEG efforts, in order to provide a more accurate composite [224]. For example, microbial signatures differentiating between people living with neurobehavioral disorders and controls are emerging [225,226].

9. Bridging Neurobiology and Metaphysics

The emerging science discussed in the workshop has raised profound questions. If free will and agency are constrained, is the punitive enforcement of moral and legal responsibility even just? Can legal systems remain unevolved when facing the headwinds of neurobiology, behavioral genetics, and social exposome sciences? If our choices are shaped by factors beyond our control, can we still be held fully responsible for them? As we better understand the complex roots of human behavior, we are called to rethink what justice truly means in a scientifically informed society. However, one of the greatest risks in developing a “legalome” [227] framework of justice is falling into biological determinism—the idea that biology alone determines behavior, erasing personal agency. While science can inform a more compassionate and effective legal response to antisocial actions, there are hazards in resorting to simplistic or deterministic interpretations.

Philosophical debates concerning free will may never be settled, and arguments concerning the personal value of believing in free will, versus the detrimental consequences of applying one’s own free will beliefs to other ‘transgressors,’ will undoubtedly continue. In the context of a criminal justice system replete with problems in the here-and-now, how can we narrow the gap between those who suggest there is no free will, and those who view agency and willpower as virtually unconstrained? Folk psychology beliefs are not only upheld because they are convenient for those who might favor the status quo, they are also upheld because various interventions (e.g., in the realm of positive psychology) demonstrate value at statistically significant levels.

From the perspective of rehabilitation, research shows that mindfulness, movement therapies, and various contemplative practices, are associated with epigenetic changes that may help explain their value [228,229]. Intervention studies show that character strengths are malleable [230,231], and faith-based programs and contemplative practices in carceral settings have been linked to positive behavioral outcomes and reduced recidivism [232,233,234,235]. Notwithstanding the methodological problems associated with defining and measuring recidivism as a broad construct, research shows that carceral and community-based programs can be effective [236,237,238].

These program and intervention findings are important. At the same time, they should not obscure the evidence that shows that incarceration, more broadly, is mildly criminogenic [239], or at the very least, offers little in the way of deterrence [240]. They can also lead to assumptions by clinicians, practitioners, and policymakers, that the ‘successful’ person utilizes willpower and agency. Sapolsky and other free will skeptics see it differently. In a debate with a clinician who argued that his successful weight management clients surely used their willpower, Sapolsky responded that the person who successfully loses weight and manages weight in a specific program can be grateful for their current brain architecture, which was paired with the right intervention at the right time; this neurobiology, Sapolsky argued, facilitates goal-directed behavior [241]. Practitioners and policymakers who focus on willpower and agency, especially if vested in a particular therapy, may be tempted to view the ‘unsuccessful’ person in their program(s) as not trying hard enough, or lean into the old adage that, subconsciously, the patient did “not want to be well.” While the literature on positive psychology interventions is encouraging, meta-analyses point to only small or modest effect sizes [242,243]. Why are they not more universally successful? One answer might be that Sapolsky is correct in his assertions.

Perhaps common ground might be found in the acknowledgment that the intersection of brain architecture and the social exposome can, at the very least, significantly constrain agency. On the other hand, given the plasticity of the brain, and opportunities to shape the social exposome (e.g., through education, equity of resources, undoing discrimination, and family support), especially in early life, it is also possible to argue that prevention science should be prioritized [244]. Sapolsky, the free will skeptic, believes that society should be investing in the early life teaching of empathy [245]. In other words, even with polygenic risk, the path to constraint on agency does not have to be viewed as an inevitability. It can be determined at the level of the social exosome. To the extent that the social exposome sets the path to agency constraint, and criminal behavior, then it forces the question of society’s culpability. In the words of US circuit judge David Bazelon: “[What] if, for example, society itself were responsible for any deprivations or degradations that the actor had suffered, society might not be entitled to condemn that actor” [246]. Among adults, the constraints may be more hardened, but the right program for the right person can still provide meaningfully positive outcomes.

It is also important to recognize that the vast majority of the global population—over 80 percent—report self-identification with a religious group [247]. Religion has had a long and intertwined history in the development of laws and the moral values and principles that govern the role and function of criminal justice systems [248]. Major world religions provide normative perspectives on moral agency, redemption, responsibility, and forgiveness [249,250,251]. At first glance, there might appear to be a non-traversable gulf between religious views of free moral agency and scientific ideas of biopsychosocial determinism. However, the integration of contemplative philosophical traditions, notably Vedanta and Vipassana, provides a nuanced metaphysical foundation.

This philosophical synthesis neither denies biological determinism nor diminishes personal agency; instead, it harmonizes them through a holistic lens [252]. Vedanta philosophy, especially as articulated in the Upanishads and Bhagavad Gita, offers profound insights into the nature of self (Atman) and universal consciousness (Brahman). The Bhagavad Gita (6.5) poignantly encapsulates this principle:

“Let a man raise himself by himself, let him not lower himself; for, he alone is the friend of himself, he alone is the enemy of himself”.

This verse illustrates Vedanta’s core teaching that true freedom and moral integrity lie within self-awareness and self-mastery. According to Vedanta, ignorance (avidya) of one’s true divine nature is the root cause of moral and ethical lapses. Recognizing one’s intrinsic divinity and interconnectedness with all life fosters profound inner transformation, facilitating compassionate and morally sound behavior. Furthermore, Vedanta emphasizes the concept of Maya (illusion), suggesting that worldly attachments and ignorance obscure our true nature. Criminal actions can thus be understood as manifestations of a deeper existential confusion. Realizing one’s inherent divinity and oneness with universal consciousness allows an individual to transcend lower impulses and transform one’s character fundamentally [253].

Complementing this perspective, Vipassana meditation emphasizes direct experiential insight into impermanence (Anicca), suffering (Dukkha), and non-self (Anatta) [254]. Vipassana’s disciplined mindfulness cultivates a deep, introspective awareness that aligns seamlessly with contemporary neuroscientific research on neuroplasticity [255]. Sustained meditation practice is scientifically proven to reshape neural pathways associated with emotional regulation, impulse control, and empathetic understanding, thus restoring a practical sense of agency amidst deterministic influences [256]. There are multiple opportunities to examine the extent to which these aspects of contemplative practices can influence justice-related outcomes at the individual, organizational, and community levels [257]. Various studies have connected the quantity and accessibility of residential green space with positive mental health, and even reduced violence and crime [258,259]. Exposure to vicarious nature in carceral settings has been associated with reductions in violence [260]. The mechanisms explaining these outcomes remain obscure, and it is worth noting that nature relatedness, fostered by the opportunity for nature contact and contemplation, may offer an explanation [261,262,263].

This integrative philosophical–neuroscientific approach resonates profoundly with spiritual criminology’s principle of mindful “non-doing” companionship. Instead of authoritative external intervention, it provides compassionate, non-judgmental support, facilitating offenders’ self-exploration and authentic transformation [264]. Creating a secure, moral atmosphere where individuals can safely confront and transcend conditioned behaviors and predispositions enables genuine rehabilitation [233]. The implementation of neuroplasticity-informed rehabilitative sentencing through structured Vipassana programs in correctional institutions demonstrates tangible success [265], evident through enhanced emotional stability, improved behavioral control, and significantly reduced recidivism [266]. Such rehabilitative strategies exemplify transformative justice, blending neuroscientific rigor with metaphysical depth. In essence, the rich philosophical insights from Vedanta and Vipassana, when synthesized with neurobiological and criminological understandings, establish a comprehensive and compassionate justice framework [140]. This holistic approach respects the nuances of biological determinism, preserves essential human agency, and elevates individual dignity, ultimately guiding criminal justice toward a more humane, ethically profound, and spiritually enlightened paradigm [6,267].

The concepts of justice and morality are deeply embedded in culture and the human psyche, perhaps expressing something fundamental about our relatedness to each other. Some argue that justice, defined as “the reciprocal quality of relationships that obtain between people for their mutual wellbeing”, is a basic human need [268]. Without a sense of justice, or a perception that the demands of reciprocity have not been met, victims who have already been harmed may be at risk for further distress. This might include feelings of anger, self-blame, helplessness, dread, and a loss of trust in fellow human beings and society at large [269]. Legal proceedings can play an important role in helping victims of crime recover from psychological harm; this might be especially true for proceedings (either formal legal or community/lay driven) that operate through the lens of restorative justice. Here, victims and communities are given a voice that is intended to be respectful, inclusive, and humane; while the particulars may differ depending on crime and context, it seeks to address harm(s) by bringing the justice-involved person and the victim (i.e., the individual and/or community members) together, with the aim achieving some form of reconciliation. Restorative justice is a non-retributive approach to justice and has been associated with a variety of positive outcomes, including lower recidivism rates [270,271].

10. Conclusions

If planetary health is to truly bridge human wellbeing with the health of natural systems, it must extend its gaze to the legal structures that shape societal outcomes. The criminal justice system, still anchored in the outdated notions of retribution and moral blame, remains largely untouched by contemporary scientific insights into mental health, behavior, and social determinants. Without reform, it risks deepening inequities and perpetuating harm across generations. Bringing biopsychosocial science to bear on legal thinking—moving beyond folk psychology toward an evidence-based, public health-oriented model of justice—offers a critical path forward. Recognizing the criminal justice system as a determinant of health is not only consistent with the goals of planetary health; it is essential for building a future that prioritizes human dignity, fairness, and the flourishing of both people and planet.