Yunsuh Nike Wee, Oklahoma State University; Daniel Sznycer, Oklahoma State University, and Jaimie Arona Krems, University of California, Los Angeles

The Bible’s lex talionis – “Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot” (Exodus 21:24-27) – has captured the human imagination for millennia. This idea of fairness has been a model for ensuring justice when bodily harm is inflicted.

Thanks to the work of linguists, historians, archaeologists and anthropologists, researchers know a lot about how different body parts are appraised in societies both small and large, from ancient times to the present day.

But where did such laws originate?

According to one school of thought, laws are cultural constructions – meaning they vary across cultures and historical periods, adapting to local customs and social practices. By this logic, laws about bodily damage would differ substantially between cultures.

Our new study explored a different possibility – that laws about bodily damage are rooted in something universal about human nature: shared intuitions about the value of body parts.

Do people across cultures and throughout history agree on which body parts are more or less valuable? Until now, no one had systematically tested whether body parts are valued similarly across space, time and levels of legal expertise – that is, among laypeople versus lawmakers.

We are psychologists who study evaluative processes and social interactions. In previous research, we have identified regularities in how people evaluate different wrongful actions, personal characteristics, friends and foods. The body is perhaps a person’s most valuable asset, and in this study we analyzed how people value its different parts. We investigated links between intuitions about the value of body parts and laws about bodily damage.

How critical is a body part or its function?

We began with a simple observation: Different body parts and functions have different effects on the odds that a person will survive and thrive. Life without a toe is a nuisance. But life without a head is impossible. Might people intuitively understand that different body parts are have different values?

Knowing the value of body parts gives you an edge. For example, if you or a loved one has suffered multiple injuries, you could treat the most valuable body part first, or allocate a greater share of limited resources to its treatment.

This knowledge could also play a role in negotiations when one person has injured another. When person A injures person B, B or B’s family can claim compensation from A or A’s family. This practice appears around the world: among the Mesopotamians, the Chinese during the Tang dynasty, the Enga of Papua New Guinea, the Nuer of Sudan, the Montenegrins and many others. The Anglo-Saxon word “wergild,” meaning “man price,” now designates in general the practice of paying for body parts.

But how much compensation is fair? Claiming too little leads to loss, while claiming too much risks retaliation. To walk the fine line between the two, victims would claim compensation in Goldilocks fashion: just right, based on the consensus value that victims, offenders and third parties in the community attach to the body part in question.

This Goldilocks principle is readily apparent in the exact proportionality of the lex talionis – “eye for eye, tooth for tooth.” Other legal codes dictate precise values of different body parts but do so in money or other goods. For example, the Code of Ur-Nammu, written 4,100 years ago in ancient Nippur, present-day Iraq, states that a man must pay 40 shekels of silver if he cuts off another man’s nose, but only 2 shekels if he knocks out another man’s tooth.

Testing the idea across cultures and time

If people have intuitive knowledge of the values of different body parts, might this knowledge underpin laws about bodily damage across cultures and historical eras?

To test this hypothesis, we conducted a study involving 614 people from the United States and India. The participants read descriptions of various body parts, such as “one arm,” “one foot,” “the nose,” “one eye” and “one molar tooth.” We chose these body parts because they were featured in legal codes from five different cultures and historical periods that we studied: the Law of Æthelberht from Kent, England, in 600 C.E., the Guta lag from Gotland, Sweden, in 1220 C.E., and modern workers’ compensation laws from the United States, South Korea and the United Arab Emirates.

Participants answered one question about each body part they were shown. We asked some how difficult it would be for them to function in daily life if they lost various body parts in an accident. Others we asked to imagine themselves as lawmakers and determine how much compensation an employee should receive if that person lost various body parts in a workplace accident. Still others we asked to estimate how angry another person would feel if the participant damaged various parts of the other’s body. While these questions differ, they all rely on assessing the value of different body parts.

To determine whether untutored intuitions underpin laws, we didn’t include people who had college training in medicine or law.

Then we analyzed whether the participants’ intuitions matched the compensations established by law.

Our findings were striking. The values placed on body parts by both laypeople and lawmakers were largely consistent. The more highly American laypeople tended to value a given body part, the more valuable this body part seemed also to Indian laypeople, to American, Korean and Emirati lawmakers, to King Æthelberht and to the authors of the Guta lag. For example, laypeople and lawmakers across cultures and over centuries generally agree that the index finger is more valuable than the ring finger, and that one eye is more valuable than one ear.

But do people value body parts accurately, in a way that corresponds with their actual functionality? There are some hints that, yes, they do. For example, laypeople and lawmakers regard the loss of a single part as less severe than the loss of multiples of that part. In addition, laypeople and lawmakers regard the loss of a part as less severe than the loss of the whole; the loss of a thumb is less severe than the loss of a hand, and the loss of a hand is less severe than the loss of an arm.

Additional evidence of accuracy can be gleaned from ancient laws. For example, linguist Lisi Oliver notes that in Barbarian Europe, “wounds that may cause permanent incapacitation or disability are fined higher than those which may eventually heal.”

Although people generally agree in valuing some body parts more than others, some sensible differences may arise. For instance, sight would be more important for someone making a living as a hunter than as a shaman. The local environment and culture might also play a role. For example, upper body strength could be particularly important in violent areas, where one needs to defend oneself against attacks. These differences remain to be investigated.

Morality and law, across time and space

Much of what counts as moral or immoral, legal or illegal, varies from place to place. Drinking alcohol, eating meat and cousin marriage, for example, have been variously condemned or favored in different times and places.

But recent research has also shown that, in some domains, there is much more moral and legal consensus about what is wrong, across cultures and even throughout the millennia. Wrongdoing – arson, theft, fraud, trespassing and disorderly conduct – appears to engender a morality and related laws that are similar across times and places. Laws about bodily damage also seem to fit into this category of moral or legal universals.

Yunsuh Nike Wee, Ph.D. Student in Experimental Psychology, Oklahoma State University; Daniel Sznycer, Assistant Professor of Psychology, Oklahoma State University, and Jaimie Arona Krems, Associate Professor of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Wayne Unger, Quinnipiac University

Donald Trump is now a convicted felon, and will be the first president of the United States with a felony conviction.

On Jan. 10, 2025, Justice Juan Merchan, who presided over the trial in a New York state court, sentenced Trump to an unconditional discharge for all 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in the first degree. In his statement to the court, Trump maintained the point he had made throughout the prosecution, that the whole case was a political witch hunt.

“The fact is, I’m totally innocent,” said Trump via a video appearance in the court.

During the sentencing, Merchan said he was keenly aware of the unique set of circumstances before him and the country. He characterized the trial as ordinary while acknowledging the context of the case was extraordinary.

“Never before has this court been presented with such a unique and remarkable set of circumstances,” said Merchan.

The sentencing brings this phase of the case to an end. Once the sentence is officially entered in a final judgment, Trump can appeal the case, as he has a legal right to do so. Trump’s attorney, Todd Blanche, made clear during the sentencing that Trump intends to appeal.

Trump ultimately failed to block sentencing

On May 30, 2024, a New York County jury found Trump guilty on 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree. That constituted a Class E felony in the state of New York, when the falsification is committed with an intent to defraud, commit another crime, or to aid or conceal the commission of another crime.

Class E felonies carry a potential penalty of up to four years in prison and a fine up to $5,000 for each count. Trial courts reserve discretion, however, to impose a sentence that accounts for other factors, such as the defendant’s criminal history.

In recent court filings, Trump sought to get his guilty verdict thrown out, arguing that the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision on presidential immunity in criminal prosecutions meant he can’t be found guilty.

On July 1, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court had concluded that the Constitution provides “absolute immunity from criminal prosecutions for actions within his … constitutional authority.” The court had also concluded that presidents hold “at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts” and “no immunity for unofficial acts.”

To be clear, Trump was convicted of unlawful conduct that occurred before his first term as president. And while it appears that the Supreme Court’s July 1 ruling applies to both state and federal criminal prosecution, the court held there is no immunity for unofficial acts, which the falsification of business records undoubtedly is.

On Jan. 3, 2025, Justice Merchan rejected Trump’s argument regarding presidential immunity because the Supreme Court’s immunity decision is not applicable in Trump’s New York case.

On Jan. 9, 2025, New York’s highest court declined to block Trump’s sentencing. The U.S. Supreme Court late in the same day denied Trump’s emergency bid to halt the sentencing, saying in its order that “the burden that sentencing

will impose on the President-Elect’s responsibilities is relatively insubstantial in light of the trial court’s stated intent to impose a sentence of ‘unconditional discharge’ after a brief virtual hearing.”

Indeed, Merchan had expressed little willingness to impose prison time for the president-elect. In the order rejecting Trump’s presidential immunity argument, Merchan said, “It seems proper at this juncture to make known the Court’s inclination to not impose any sentence of incarceration.”

Even if Merchan imposed prison time, many constitutional law scholars, including myself, argue that Trump’s sentence would, at minimum, be deferred until after his next term in the Oval Office.

Rather, Merchan imposed “unconditional discharge” as a sentence. That means there are no penalties or conditions imposed on Trump, such as prison time or parole.

Serving the public interest, not time

According to New York law, a court “may impose a sentence of unconditional discharge … if the court, having regard to the nature and circumstances of the offense and to the history, character and condition of the defendant, is of the opinion that neither the public interest nor the ends of justice would be served by a sentence of imprisonment and that probation supervision is not appropriate.”

Regarding Trump’s case specifically, Merchan wrote, “A sentence of an unconditional discharge appears to be the most viable solution to ensure finality and allow (Trump) to pursue his appellate options.”

Put simply, it appears Merchan, having considered the totality of the circumstances, including Trump’s election to a second term as president, concluded, as is his right as a judge, that it is in the best interest of the public not to imprison Trump.

Generally, trial courts reserve a tremendous amount of discretion when it comes to imposing sentences. Legislatures can, and often do, set sentencing guidelines, prescribing what penalties trial judges can impose. It is clear in this case that the New York State Legislature allows trial judges to, at their discretion, deliver “unconditional discharge” as a sentence.

Uniquely, Trump had sought dismissal of his guilty verdict before his sentencing. Normally, criminal defendants do not have a legal right to appeal their verdicts until a final judgment is entered against them. In criminal law, a final judgment must include the defendant’s sentence.

But, of course, this is not your ordinary criminal case. As Merchan hinted, moving forward with the sentencing favored Trump because it would result in a final judgment being entered against him, thus enabling him to properly appeal his conviction.

This story has been updated to reflect the U.S. Supreme Court’s order denying Donald Trump’s bid to delay his Jan. 10 sentencing and to include the actual sentence entered against Trump.

Wayne Unger, Assistant Professor of Law, Quinnipiac University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Nikki Crowley, Penn State

Many people use the new year to reflect on their relationship with alcohol. Just-released government guidelines are giving Americans another reason to consider a “dry January.”

Over the past few decades, mounting scientific evidence has shown that as little as 1-2 alcoholic drinks per day can lead to increases in the likelihood of several cancers. This prompted the U.S. surgeon general, Dr. Vivek Murthy, to release a new Surgeon General Advisory on Jan. 3, 2025, warning about the link between alcohol and cancer. This report highlighted the evidence and included a call for new cancer warning labels on alcoholic beverages.

The association between alcohol and cancer isn’t new news – scientists have been trying to determine the link for decades – yet most people aren’t aware of the risks and may only associate drinking with liver disease like cirrhosis. In a 2019 survey from the American Institute for Cancer Research, less than half of Americans identified alcohol as a risk factor for cancer.

Alcohol is the third-most preventable cause of cancer in the U.S, putting it just behind tobacco and obesity. As the surgeon general’s report highlights, alcohol is associated with approximately 100,000 cancer cases and 20,000 cancer deaths every year, playing a role in breast, liver, colorectal, mouth, throat, esophagus and voice box cancer cases. Alcohol-induced cancer deaths outnumber alcohol-associated traffic crash fatalities every year.

The report included the suggestion to add warning labels to alcohol similar to what is already required for tobacco products – another substance of abuse known to cause cancer.

As a neuroscientist specializing in the neurobiological effects of alcohol use and binge drinking, I am glad to see the call to action for reducing alcohol consumption in the United States.

Key takeaways of the report

With so few people aware of the links between alcohol consumption and various cancers – and the fact that the vast majority of people consume some alcohol every week – it’s easy to see why the surgeon general is calling for greater awareness. The 22-page report highlights what scientists know about the relationship between alcohol and cancer, and suggests actions for moving forward. Those include label changes on alcohol, which have not been updated since they were created in 1988.

Somewhat strikingly, breast cancer carries a large portion of this risk – making it particularly worrisome in the face of increased alcohol use among women.

These numbers don’t only apply to heavy alcohol drinkers. While less alcohol is better, 25% of these cancer cases were in people classified as moderate drinkers – consuming, on average, fewer than two drinks per day. This means that anyone regularly drinking alcohol, even small amounts, should know about and understand the risks.

Surgeon general’s advisories are the primary way that the Department of Health and Human Services, where the Office of the Surgeon General resides, communicate health issues of great importance to the public. Surgeon general’s advisories are not necessarily breaking news, but they take the opportunity to bring public awareness to science surrounding big public health issues.

The science behind the link between alcohol and cancer

The relationship between alcohol and cancer has been clear to scientists for decades. In fact, it was highlighted in a 2016 surgeon general’s report as well, which focused on addiction more broadly.

The new report outlines the different types of evidence supporting this link. One way is through epidemiological science, which tries to understand patterns and relationships between the rates of cancer and how much alcohol people consumed. Another is through experimental animal studies, which allow scientists to understand the mechanism and causality of these connections as they apply to specific cancers. Together, studies conclusively show a link and pathway between alcohol consumption and cancer.

The surgeon general’s report highlights four key pathways through which alcohol can cause cancer. These largely focus on the ways alcohol can negatively affect your DNA, the building blocks of cells. While the healthy cells in your body divide all the time, their abnormal growth can be driven by aberrant factors like alcohol-induced DNA damage.

This DNA damage leads to uncontrollable growth of tissue instead of healthy, normal tissue growth. This abnormal tissue growth is cancer. The four pathways through which alcohol can lead to cancer highlighted in the report are:

1. The body naturally breaks alcohol down into acetaldehyde. Acetaldehyde can damage and break DNA, leading to chromosomal rearrangements and tumors. This link is so strong that acetaldehyde has been classified as a carcinogen since 1999.

2. Alcohol creates reactive oxygen species. Reactive oxygen species, sometimes called “free radicals,” are unstable molecules that contain oxygen and can further damage DNA, proteins and fats.

3. Alcohol can influence hormones, like estrogen. Alcohol can raise the amount of estrogen in the body, which may explain its link to breast cancer. This increased estrogen can influence breast tissue by causing – you guessed it – DNA damage.

4. Alcohol is a solvent, which means other things can dissolve in it. This makes it easier for carcinogens from other sources – like cigarettes and e-vapes – to be absorbed by the body when the two are consumed together.

Is any amount of alcohol safe?

The biggest question on people’s minds right now is likely “how much alcohol can I safely drink?” and the answer to that might disappoint you – probably none.

Alcohol use remains one of the most preventable risk factors for cancer. And even moderate alcohol consumption – one or fewer drinks per day – may elevate cancer risk for some types, such as breast, throat and mouth cancers.

But none of these studies can tell you what your individual risk for cancer is. The relationship between alcohol and cancer can be influenced by your genes, such as those that control the enzymes that metabolize alcohol, and other lifestyle factors that influence the rates of cancer broadly, like diet and inflammation. All of these lifestyle and personal health factors can influence how risky alcohol consumption is for you.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention notes that if you choose to drink, consider sticking to less than one, for women, or two, for men, standard servings of alcohol per day – which might be smaller than you think, and don’t binge drink alcohol at all. The surgeon general is also suggesting a rethinking of these guidelines to include updated limits on daily alcohol consumption and greater educational efforts around the link between alcohol and cancer.

The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism has similar recommendations around limiting alcohol consumption and advises that for people who choose to drink alcohol, “the less, the better.”

The institute offers tips on its website for managing your alcohol consumption or abstaining from alcohol consumption altogether, including finding alternative hobbies and activities, identifying what leads to your urges to drink and having a plan to handle urges, and identifying a strategy for saying “no” to an alcoholic beverage in social settings.

Nikki Crowley, Assistant Professor of Biology, Biomedical Engineering and Pharmacology, Penn State

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.