January 2014, Volume 8, Issue 1, pp 43-50,
Open Access This content is freely available online to anyone, anywhere at any time.
Date: 06 Jun 2012
Neurolaw and Direct Brain Interventions
- Nicole A Vincent
- … show all 1 hide
This issue of Criminal Law and Philosophy contains three papers on a topic of increasing importance within the field of “neurolaw”—namely, the implications for criminal law of direct brain intervention based mind altering techniques (DBI’s). To locate these papers’ topic within a broader context, I begin with an overview of some prominent topics in the field of neurolaw, where possible providing some references to relevant literature. The specific questions asked by the three authors, as well as their answers and central claims, are then sketched out, and I end with a brief comment to explain why this particular topic can be expected to gain more prominence in coming years.
Bizzi, E., Hyman, S. E., et al. (2009). Using imaging to identify deceit: Scientific and ethical questions. Cambridge, MA: American Academy of Arts and Sciences.
Blair, R. J. R. (2007). What emotional responding is to blame it might not be to responsibility. Philosophy, Psychiatry & Psychology, 14(2), 149–151.CrossRef
Bomann-Larsen, L. (2011). Voluntary rehabilitation? on neurotechnological behavioural treatment, valid consent and (In)appropriate offers. Neuroethics (OnlineFirst). doi:10.1007/s12152-011-9105-9.
Burgess, A. (2000). A clockwork orange (with an introduction by Blake Morrison). London: Penguin Books Ltd.
Chandler, J. A. (2010). Reading the judicial mind: Predicting the courts’ reaction to the use of neuroscientific evidence for lie detection. Dalhousie Law Journal, 33(1), 85–116.
Coukell, A. (2006). No more lies. Proto: 32–7.
Dahan-Katz, L. (forthcoming). The implications of heuristics and biases research on moral and legal responsibility: A case against the reasonable person standard. Neuroscience and Legal Responsibility. N. Vincent, OUP.
Davies, P. (forthcoming). Skepticism concerning human agency: Sciences of the self vs. ‘voluntariness’ in the law. In N. Vincent (Ed.), Neuroscience and Legal Responsibility. OUP.
Eagleman, D. M. (2008). Neuroscience and the Law. Houston Lawyer, 16(6), 36–40.
Farah, M. J., Illes, J., et al. (2004). Neurocognitive enhancement: what can we do and what should we do? Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 5(5), 421–425.CrossRef
Farahany, N. A. (2012). Incriminating thoughts. Stanford Law Review, 64, 351–408.
Farisco, M., & Petrini, C. (2012). The impact of neuroscience and genetics on the law: A recent Italian case. Neuroethics OnlineFirst: 1–3. doi:10.1007/s12152-012-9152-x.
Feresin, E. (2009). Lighter sentence for murderer with ‘bad genes’. Nature News. doi:10.1038/news.2009.1050.
Fine, C., & Kennett, J. (2004). Mental impairment, moral understanding and criminal responsibility: Psychopathy and the purposes of punishment. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 27(5), 425–443.CrossRef
Fox, D. (2011). The right to silence protects mental control. Law and Neuroscience, Current Legal Issues, 13. M. Freeman. Oxford, UK, OUP: 335–66.
Gazzaniga, M. S. (2008). The law and neuroscience. Neuron 60(November 6): 412–415.
Glannon, W. (2008). Psychopharmacological enhancement. Neuroethics, 1(1), 45–54.CrossRef
Glannon, W. (2011). Diminishing and enhancing free will. AJOB Neuroscience, 2(3), 15–26.CrossRef
Goodenough, O. R., & Tucker, M. (2010). Law and cognitive neuroscience. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 6, 61–92.CrossRef
Greely, H. T. (2008). Neuroscience and criminal justice: Not responsibility but treatment. University of Kansas Law Review, 56, 1103–1138.
Greely, H. T. (2009). Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men?: Behavioral genomics, neuroscience, criminal law, and the search for hidden knowledge. The Impact of Behavioral Sciences on Criminal Law. N. A. Farahany. New York, NY, OUP: 161–79.
Greely, H. T. (2012). Direct brain interventions to treat disfavored human behaviors: Ethical and social issues. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, 91(2), 163–165.CrossRef
Greene, J., & Cohen, J. D. (2004). For the law, neuroscience changes nothing and everything. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London: 1775–1785. doi:10.1098/rstb.2004.1546.
Haji, I. (2010). Psychopathy, ethical perception, and moral culpability. Neuroethics, 3(2), 135–150.CrossRef
Hirstein, W., & Sifferd, C. (2011). The legal self: Executive processes and legal theory. Consciousness and Cognition, 2, 156–171.CrossRef
Houston, L., & Vierboom, A. (2012). Neuroscience and law: Australia. International Neurolaw. T. M. Spranger. Heidelberg, DE, Springer: 11–42.
Jones, O. D. (2004). Law, evolution and the brain: applications and open questions. Law and the Brain. S. Zeki and O. R. Goodenough. New York, Oxford University Press: 57–75.
Jones, O. D., & Buckholtz, J. W., et al. (2009). Brain imaging for legal thinkers: A guide for the perplexed. Stanford Technology Law Review: 5. Accessed on May 29, 2012 at http://stlr.stanford.edu/pdf/jones-brain-imaging.pdf.
Kaplan, J. (2009). Misinformation, misrepresentation, and misuse of human behavioral genetics research. The Impact of Behavioral Sciences on Criminal Law. N. A. Farahany. New York, NY, OUP: 45–80.
Lekovic, G. P. (2008). Neuroscience and the law. Surgical Neurology, 69, 99–101.CrossRef
Levy, N. (2007). Neuroethics: Challenges for the 21st century. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK.CrossRef
Levy, N. (forthcoming). Moral responsibility and consciousness: two challenges, one solution. Neuroscience and Legal Responsibility. N. Vincent, OUP.
Lewis, C. S. (1963). The humanitarian theory of punishment. Res Judicatae, 6, 224–230.
Martell, D. A. (1992). Forensic neuropsychology and the criminal law. Law and Human Behavior, 16(3), 313–336.CrossRef
Mobbs, D., Lau, H. C., et al. (2007). Law, responsibility, and the brain. PLoS Biology, 5(4), 693–700.CrossRef
Morse, S. J. (2006). Brain overclaim syndrome and criminal responsibility: A diagnostic note. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 3, 397–412.
Nishimoto, S., Vu, A. T., et al. (2011). Reconstructing visual experiences from brain activity evoked by natural movies. Current Biology, 21(19), 1641–1646.CrossRef
Prado, M. S., & Patterson, D. (2010). Philosophical foundations of law and neuroscience. University of Illinois Law Review, 4, 1211–1250.
Rosen, J. (2007). The brain on the stand. The New York Times.
The Royal Society. (2011). Brain waves module 4: Neuroscience and the law. London, UK: The Royal Society.
Tovino, S. A. (2007). Functional neuroimaging and the law: Trends and directions for future scholarship. The American Journal of Bioethics, 7(9), 44–56.CrossRef
Vedder, A., & Klaming, L. (2010). Human enhancement for the common good—using neurotechnologies to improve eyewitness memory. AJOB Neuroscience, 1(3), 22–33.CrossRef
Vincent, N. (2010). On the relevance of neuroscience to criminal responsibility. Criminal Law and Philosophy, 4(1), 77–98.CrossRef
Vincent, N. (forthcoming). Enhancing responsibility. In N. Vincent (Ed.), Neuroscience and Legal Responsibility. OUP.
- Neurolaw and Direct Brain Interventions
- Open Access
- Available under Open Access This content is freely available online to anyone, anywhere at any time.
Criminal Law and Philosophy
Volume 8, Issue 1 , pp 43-50
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer Netherlands
- Additional Links
- Direct brain interventions
- Industry Sectors
- Nicole A Vincent (1) (2)
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Philosophy Department, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- 2. Philosophy Department, TU Delft, Delft, The Netherlands