Finally, a study that just might restore your faith in humanity: Researchers at Vanderbilt University have found that when it comes to handing out punishment for harm done by our fellow man, intent, not emotion, is the biggest determinant.

“A fundamental aspect of the human experience is the desire to punish harmful acts, even when the victim is a perfect stranger. Equally important, however, is our ability to put the brakes on this impulse when we realize the harm was done unintentionally,” said Rene Marois, the Vanderbilt University professor of psychology who headed the research team. “This study helps us begin to elucidate the neural circuitry that permits this type of regulation.”

The study focused on brain imaging. Specifically, they examined which parts of the brain became active when deciding punishment. What they found was that the area of the brain responsible for determining fault trumped the emotional areas that compel us to punish people in the first place.

To get there, they took 30 test subjects and gave them a series of scenarios. They all starred a someone named John, who would inflict harm in the form of either death, maiming, physical assault or property damage to people named Steve or Mary. Half of the stories made it clear that John’s actions were intentional, while the other half made it clear that they were unintentional.

That wasn’t the only variable. Each scenario also had to versions, one where the harm was presented clinically and factually, and one where the harm was described in more gruesome detail. They found that the way in which the consequences were depicted affected the level of punishment, but only when the subject first determined the harm to be intentional. If the act was deemed unintentional, no amount of bloody detail resulted in higher punishments for John.

Though this is the first time the biological causes for such predispositions has been studied, the researchers say the court system has known for a long time that certain language and imagery can have a profound effect on the way juries punish defendants.

“Judges are permitted to exclude relevant evidence from a trial if they decide that its probative value is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial nature,” said Michael Treadway, a post-doctoral fellow at Harvard Medical School and lead author of the study.

They say that this finding is reassuring: In the presence of wrongdoing, we neither allow a lack of intent to completely shut down our urge to punish, nor do we allow the gory details to color our thinking too strongly if an act is in fact unintentional.