Abstract
Neurolaw is a new, rapidly developing area of interdisciplinary research on the meaning and implications of neuroscience for the law and legal practices. In this article three recently published volumes in this field will be reviewed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
I adapt Morse and Roskies’ (2013) view. They state that neuroscience “is poised to have a significant effect on law in three ways” (2013, p. 240–1). The first way concerns brain-based assessment, which may be used for, e.g., prediction of recidivism. The second way is treatments and other interventions, for instance aimed at prevention of crime. Thirdly, neuroscience may have impact on the law by changing “commonsense views about human nature and the causes of human action” (2013, p. 241).
Libet and co-workers reported that specific neural activity can be detected (recording the so-called readiness potential) before subjects are aware that they are about to perform an action (Libet 2002).
In part following Vincent (2013, p. 326) who distinguishes between denying, assessing, restoring and enhancing responsibility.
References
Aharoni E, Funk C, Sinnott-Armstrong W, Gazzaniga M (2008) Can neurological evidence help courts assess criminal responsibility? Lessons from law and neuroscience. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1124:145–160
Bennett MR, Hacker PMS (2003) Philosophical foundations of neuroscience. Blackwell Pub, Malden
Bublitz C, Merkel R (2013) Guilty minds in washed brains? Manipulation cases and the limits of neuroscientific excuses in liberal legal orders. In: Vincent NA (ed) Neuroscience and legal responsibility. Oxford University Press, New York
Craigie G, Coram A (2013) Irrationality, mental capacities, and neuroscience. In: Vincent NA (ed) Neuroscience and legal responsibility. Oxford University Press, New York
Dahan-Katz L (2013) The implications of heuristics and biases research on moral and legal responsibility: a case against the reasonable person standard. In: Vincent NA (ed) Neuroscience and legal responsibility. Oxford University Press, New York
Davies PS (2013) Skepticism concerning human agency: sciences of the self versus “voluntariness” in the law. In: Vincent NA (ed) Neuroscience and legal responsibility. Oxford University Press, New York
Feld BC, Casey BJ, Hurd YL (2013) Adolescent competence and culpability: implications of neuroscience for juvenile justice administration. In: Morse SJ, Roskies AL (eds) A primer on criminal law and neuroscience. Oxford University Press, New York
Gavaghan C (2013) Neuroscience, deviant appetites, and the criminal law. In: Vincent NA (ed) Neuroscience and legal responsibility. Oxford University Press, New York
Greely H (2013) Mind reading, neuroscience, and the law. In: Morse SJ, Roskies AL (eds) A primer on criminal law and neuroscience. Oxford University Press, New York
Greene J, Cohen J (2004) For the law, neuroscience changes nothing and everything. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 359(1451):1775–1785
Hall W, Carter A (2013) How may neuroscience affect the way that the criminal courts deal with addicted offenders? In: Vincent NA (ed) Neuroscience and legal responsibility. Oxford University Press, New York
Levy N (2007) Neuroethics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Libet B (2002) The timing of mental events: Libet’s experimental findings and their implications. Conscious Cogn 11(2):291–299, discussion 304–33
Meynen G (2013) A neurolaw perspective on psychiatric assessments of criminal responsibility: decision-making, mental disorder, and the brain. Int J Law Psychiatry 36(2):93–99
Meynen G, Oei K (2011) Internationalizing forensic assessments of criminal responsibility. Med Law 30(4):529–534
Morse S (2005) Brain overclaim syndrome and criminal responsibility: a diagnostic note. Ohio State J Crim Law 3:397–412
Morse SJ (2013) Common criminal law compatibilism. In: Vincent NA (ed) Neuroscience and legal responsibility. Oxford University Press, New York
Morse SJ, Roskies AL (eds) (2013) A primer on criminal law and neuroscience. A contribution of the Law and Neuroscience Project, supported by the MacArthur Foundation. Oxford University Press, New York
Nadelhoffer T, Bibas S, Grafton S, Kiehl KA, Mansfield A, Sinnott-Armstrong W et al (2012) Neuroprediction, violence, and the law: setting the stage. Neuroethics 5(1):67–99
Pardo MS, Patterson D (2013) Minds, brains, and law. The conceptual foundations of law and neuroscience. Oxford University Press, New York
Simon RJ, Ahn-Redding H (2006) The insanity defense, the world over. Lexington Books, Lanham
Spranger TM (ed) (2012) International neurolaw. A comparative analysis. Springer, Heidelberg
Vincent NA (ed) (2013) Neuroscience and legal responsibility. Oxford University Press, New York
Vincent NA (2014) Neurolaw and direct brain interventions. Crim Law Philos 8:43–50
Books
Morse SJ, Roskies AL (eds) (2013) A primer on criminal law and neuroscience. A contribution of the law and neuroscience project, supported by the MacArthur Foundation. Oxford University Press, New York. 320 pages. ISBN 978-0-19-985917-7. Price: £48.99
Pardo MS, Patterson D (2013) Minds, brains, and law. The conceptual foundations of law and neuroscience. Oxford University Press, New York. 240 pages ISBN 978-0-19-981213-4. Price: £55.00
Vincent NA (ed) (2013) Neuroscience and legal responsibility. Oxford University Press, New York. 368 pages. ISBN 978-0-19-992560-5. Price: £38.99
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Meynen, G. Neurolaw: Neuroscience, Ethics, and Law. Review Essay. Ethic Theory Moral Prac 17, 819–829 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-014-9501-4
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-014-9501-4