Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

International Neurolaw pp 11–42Cite as

Neuroscience and Law: Australia

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Abstract

The Australian legal system has not been receptive to new neuroscientific technology. Current case law and legislative provisions demonstrate the hurdles imposed by the rigorous admissibility standards.

Leanne Houston is a Lecturer of Law at the University of Technology Sydney (UTS). Amy Vierboom, Honours student in Law (UTS).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Rosen (2007), p. 39.

  2. 2.

    Moriarty (2008), p. 29.

  3. 3.

    Baker (2009).

  4. 4.

    Shen and Jones (2011).

  5. 5.

    Greely and Iles (2007), p. 377.

  6. 6.

    Cournos and Bavaniss (2003). See also: Maharastra v Sharma and Khandelwal, Sessions Case No. 508/07 (June 12, 2008).

  7. 7.

    Farwell (1999); Harrington V State, 659 N.W.2d 509 (Iowa 2003).

  8. 8.

    Leenaghan and Guerrera (2005).

  9. 9.

    Dickson and McMahon (2005).

  10. 10.

    Evidence Act 1995 (Cth); Evidence Act 1971 (ACT); Evidence Act 1975 (NSW); Evidence Act (NT); Evidence Act 1977 (QLD); Evidence Act 1929 (SA); Evidence Act 2001 (Tas); Evidence Act 2008 (Vic); Evidence Act 1906 (WA). Chapter will focus on Cth and NSW jurisdictions.

  11. 11.

    United States Of America v Lorne Allan Semrau, (31 May 2010), No. 07-10074, Report and Recommendations and Wilson v. Corestaff Services, (14 May 2010), Supreme Court, Kings County, New York State Law Reporting Bureau.

  12. 12.

    Section 55 Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), (NSW) and may be found so in relation to witness credibility: s55 (2) (a) of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) (NSW) specifically considers the possibility of evidence being relevant in relation to the “credibility of a witness” is expressly acknowledged.

  13. 13.

    Freckleton and Selby (2009).

  14. 14.

    (1960) 103 CLR 486 at 491.

  15. 15.

    (1984) 38 SASR 45.

  16. 16.

    Justice Peter McClellan, Chief Judge at Common Law, Supreme Court of New South Wales, “Admissibility of expert evidence under the Uniform Evidence Act”, Judicial College of Victoria 1 of 42 Emerging Issues in Expert Evidence Workshop Melbourne, 2 October 2009.

  17. 17.

    R v Gilmore [1977] 2 NSWLR 935, Lewis v R (1987) 88 FLR 104.

  18. 18.

    F 2d 1013 (1923).

  19. 19.

    R v Gallagher [2001] NSWSC 462.

  20. 20.

    Velevski v The Queen (2002) 187 ALR 233.

  21. 21.

    R v Tang (2006) 65 NSWLR 681 (CCA).

  22. 22.

    US 579 (1993).

  23. 23.

    US 579 (1993) at 156.

  24. 24.

    Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles (2001) 52 NSWLR 705 (CA).

  25. 25.

    Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles (2001) 52 NSWLR 705 (CA), JA Heydon, at 85.

  26. 26.

    Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc [1993] USSC 114; 509 US 579 (1993) (here after known as ‘Daubert’).

  27. 27.

    R v Tang (2006) 65 NSWLR 681 (CCA) CJ Spigelman at 138.

  28. 28.

    R v Tang (2006) 65 NSWLR 681 (CCA) CJ Spigelman at 139.

  29. 29.

    United States Of America v Lorne Allan Semrau, (31 May 2010), No. 07-10074, Report and Recommendations, J Pham.

  30. 30.

    Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc [1993] USSC 114; 509 US 579 (1993), pp. 12–15. This is made under Rule 104 of The Federal Rules of Evidence 1975 (US).

  31. 31.

    Federal Evidence Rule 702, The Federal Rules of Evidence 1975 (US).

  32. 32.

    Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 125L. Ed. 2d 469, 113 S. Ct. 2786. In this the court held that this rule superseded the “general acceptance” test set out in Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923).

  33. 33.

    United States v. Bonds, 12 F.3d 540, 555-56 (6th Cir. 1993).

  34. 34.

    Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 125L. Ed. 2d 469, 113 S. Ct. 2786 at 593–594.

  35. 35.

    United States Of America v Lorne Allan Semrau, (31 May 2010), No. 07-10074, Report and Recommendations, J Pham, at p. 31.

  36. 36.

    The court looked at articles including: Simpson (2008) and Chen (2009).

  37. 37.

    As set out in R v Tang (2006) 65 NSWLR 681 (CCA) CJ Spigelman at 138.

  38. 38.

    R v Gray [2003] EWCA Crim 1001.

  39. 39.

    Edmond et al. (2008), University of New South Wales, University of Technology, Sydney, Australian Research Council and University of Western Sydney.

  40. 40.

    R v Tang (2006) 65 NSWLR 681 (CCA).

  41. 41.

    Jury Service, ‘The Role of Juries’, Justice and Attorney-General, NSW Government, 31 July 2007.

  42. 42.

    Brownlee v The Queen [2001] HCA 36; (2001) 75 ALJR 1180.or in America: United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303, 312–13 (1998).

  43. 43.

    Wilson v. Corestaff Services, (14 May 2010), Supreme Court, Kings County, New York State Law Reporting Bureau.

  44. 44.

    Wilson v. Corestaff Services, (14 May 2010), Supreme Court, Kings County, New York State Law Reporting Bureau, 2.

  45. 45.

    Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 [DC 1923], remains the authoritative case in NY District Court’s jurisdiction.

  46. 46.

    Wilson v. Corestaff Services, (14 May 2010), Supreme Court, Kings County, New York State Law Reporting Bureau, p. 3.

  47. 47.

    Seaman (2009), p. 461.

  48. 48.

    Brownlee v The Queen [2001] HCA 36; (2001) 75 ALJR 1180 at 21: see Williams v Florida [1970] USSC 155; 399 US 78 (1970) at 100.

  49. 49.

    The Queen v Murdoch [2005] NTSC 78.

  50. 50.

    The Queen v Murdoch [2005] NTSC 78 CJ Martin at 108.

  51. 51.

    Caudill (2010).

  52. 52.

    Shapiro (1986).

  53. 53.

    Seaman (2009), p. 475.

  54. 54.

    Easteal and Easteal (1990).

  55. 55.

    Goodman-Delahunty and Hewson (2010), p. 1.

  56. 56.

    Briody (2004).

  57. 57.

    R v Duke 1979 22 SASSR 46, King CJ at 48.

  58. 58.

    Hagan (2009).

  59. 59.

    Jury Act 1977 (NSW).

  60. 60.

    Ng v R [2003] HCA 20; 217 CLR 521; 197 ALR 10; 77 ALJR 967 (10 April 2003).

  61. 61.

    Seaman (2009), p. 427.

  62. 62.

    R. v. Kirkman (1987) 44 S.A.S.R. 591.

  63. 63.

    R v Abbott [2006] VSCA 100 (4 May 2006).

  64. 64.

    R. v. Kirkman (1987) 44 S.A.S.R. 591 at 593.

  65. 65.

    An example of this can be seen in the recent decision by a jury, acquitting a Queensland couple who were being tried under s225 of their Criminal Code for illegally procuring an abortion, while it is not possible to know for sure that this was a case of jury nullification, it does present a persuasive example of where the jury arguably returned a merciful verdict in application of the law: see, Wainer (2010).

  66. 66.

    Kalver and Zeisel (1966).

  67. 67.

    Seaman (2009), p. 484.

  68. 68.

    R v Abbott [2006] VSCA 100 (4 May 2006) per JA Buchanan at 18.

  69. 69.

    Ruprecht (1997), p. 217.

  70. 70.

    S17(3) Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).

  71. 71.

    Hocking and Manville (2001).

  72. 72.

    S20 (2) Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), (NSW).

  73. 73.

    Weissensteiner v The Queen [1993] HCA 65; (1993) 178 CLR 217, per Mason CJ, Deane And Dawson JJ at 33.

  74. 74.

    Weissensteiner v The Queen [1993] HCA 65; (1993) 178 CLR 217, per Mason CJ, Deane And Dawson JJ at 33 and Azzopardi v R [2001] HCA 25; 205 CLR 50; 179 ALR 349; 75 ALJR 931 (3 May 2001).

  75. 75.

    Weissensteiner v The Queen [1993] HCA 65; (1993) 178 CLR 217per JJ Gaudron and McHugh at 4.

  76. 76.

    White (2010), p. 258.

  77. 77.

    Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998, (NSW), found at the Office of the NSW Privacy Commissioner.

  78. 78.

    Section 80, The Australian Constitution 1900 (Cth).

  79. 79.

    Goodman-Delahunty and Hewson (2010).

  80. 80.

    S135, s136, s137 in Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) (NSW).

  81. 81.

    S135, s136, s137 in Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) (NSW) at s137, this is the main general discretionary clause used in evidence: R v Keenan Mundine [2008] NSWCCA 55 (18 March 2008).

  82. 82.

    United States Of America v Lorne Allan Semrau, (31 May 2010), No. 07-10074, Report and Recommendations, at p. 33.

  83. 83.

    United States v. Thomas, 167 F.3d 299, 308-09 (6th Cir. 1999).

  84. 84.

    United States v. Sherlin, 67 F.3d 1208, 1217 (6th Cir. 1995).

  85. 85.

    United States v. Thomas, 167 F.3d 299,308-09 (6th Cir. 1999).

  86. 86.

    Wilson v. Corestaff Services, (14 May 2010), SC, Kings County, New York State Law Reporting Bureau, pp. 1–2.

  87. 87.

    S137, Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).

  88. 88.

    Papakosmas v R [1999] HCA 37; 196 CLR 297; 164 ALR 548; 73 ALJR 1274 (12 August 1999).

  89. 89.

    Adam v R [2001] HCA 57; 207 CLR 96; 183 ALR 625; 75 ALJR 1537 (11 October 2001).

  90. 90.

    R v Keenan Mundine [2008] NSWCCA 55 (18 March 2008).

  91. 91.

    R v Keenan Mundine [2008] NSWCCA 55 (18 March 2008) per J Simpson, at 33.

  92. 92.

    R v Keenan Mundine [2008] NSWCCA 55 (18 March 2008) per J Simpson, at 33.

  93. 93.

    Papakosmas v The Queen [1999] HCA 37; 196 CLR 297; 164 ALR 548; 73 ALJR 1274 (12 August 1999) per j McHugh at 92.

  94. 94.

    The question of volition, or voluntariness forms traditionally forms part of the actus reus inquiry and looks at whether the criminal action was freely done, following principles laid out in Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 462.

  95. 95.

    ‘Mens Rea’ looks at the mental state of the accused, requiring that the crime was done with a “guilty mind”. “The mens rea requirement stems from the common law notion of reserving punishment for those behaving wickedly.” Brown and Murphy (2010), p. 1119, 1128.

  96. 96.

    The full name of this defence is “Substantial impairment by abnormality of mind”, found at s23A of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).

  97. 97.

    Freund (2002).

  98. 98.

    Mayberg (2010), p. 37, 51.

  99. 99.

    Such as those from invasive tumours, infection processes and neurodegenerative disorders, Mayberg (2010).

  100. 100.

    Batts (2009); Müller et al. (2008).

  101. 101.

    Yang and Raine (2009).

  102. 102.

    Bloom (2010).

  103. 103.

    Kiehl (2010).

  104. 104.

    Wandell and Smirnakis (2009).

  105. 105.

    Mayberg (2010), p. 37, 40.

  106. 106.

    Evidence Act 1995 (Cth),(NSW).

  107. 107.

    R v Tang (2006) 65 NSWLR 681 (CCA) CJ Spigelman at 138.

  108. 108.

    Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 125L. Ed. 2d 469, 113 S. Ct. 2786 at 593–594.

  109. 109.

    Mayberg (2010), p. 37, 51.

  110. 110.

    Mayberg (2010), p. 41.

  111. 111.

    Vincent (2010), in discussion of Reimer (2008).

  112. 112.

    Ss 135, 136, 137 of the Acts.

  113. 113.

    Aldrich (1995), 1.

  114. 114.

    Mobbs et al. (2007).

  115. 115.

    Vincent (2010), p. 17.

  116. 116.

    Vincent (2010), p. 18.

  117. 117.

    Vincent (2010), p. 17.

  118. 118.

    Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 462.

  119. 119.

    Robert M. Sapolsky (2004).

  120. 120.

    Russell (2007).

  121. 121.

    Fodor (2003), p. 134.

  122. 122.

    Libet (1999).

  123. 123.

    Marchetti (2005).

  124. 124.

    Libet (1999).

  125. 125.

    McKenna (2009).

  126. 126.

    Morse (2008), p. 19, and Greene and Cohen (2004), p. 1775, 1778, come to different conclusions about how this understanding may impact on legal justice.

  127. 127.

    Hodgson (2000).

  128. 128.

    Wegner (2005).

  129. 129.

    Sapolsky (2004), p. 1794.

  130. 130.

    R v Falconer (1990) 171 CLR 30.

  131. 131.

    ANU Law Department (2010).

  132. 132.

    Brown and Murphy (2010), p. 1119, 1130.

  133. 133.

    Nagel (1974).

  134. 134.

    Brown and Murphy (2010), p. 1119, 1129.

  135. 135.

    See: ‘Intention: Multiple Meanings’, in ANU Law Department (2010).

  136. 136.

    Brown and Murphy 2010, p. 1119, 1129.

  137. 137.

    R v S [1979] 2 NSWLR 1 as discussed Hunter Area Health Service & v Presland [2005] NSWCA 33 (21 April 2005) per JA Santow at 312, accessed at http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/nsw/NSWCA/2005/33.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=insanity.

  138. 138.

    s23, Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).

  139. 139.

    H.L.A. Hart, Punishment and the Elimination of Responsibility, (1962), Athlone Press at 20, as discussed Hunter Area Health Service & v Presland [2005] NSWCA 33 (21 April 2005) per JA Santow at 312.

  140. 140.

    This is made clear in any discussion of omission – we cannot be held accountable for those things we could not have done: Vincent (2010).

  141. 141.

    Mayberg (2010), p. 37, 38.

  142. 142.

    M’Naghten’s case [1843] UKHL J16 (19 June 1843).

  143. 143.

    Mayberg (2010), p. 37, 40.

  144. 144.

    S23A (1) (a) of Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).

  145. 145.

    R v Dusan Maric [2009] NSWSC 346 (1 May 2009).

  146. 146.

    R v Dusan Maric [2009] NSWSC 346 (1 May 2009), as per Harrison J at 35.

  147. 147.

    s23 (8) of Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).

  148. 148.

    Maibom (2008).

  149. 149.

    Vincent (2010), p. 17.

  150. 150.

    Calls for a therapeutic approach are discussed in: Hodgson (2000).

  151. 151.

    Moir and Jessel (1995).

  152. 152.

    Sapolsky (2004), p. 1795.

  153. 153.

    Norrie (1991).

  154. 154.

    Mayberg (2010), p. 37, 39.

  155. 155.

    Bloom (2010), p. 44.

  156. 156.

    Doidge (2009).

  157. 157.

    Sapolsky (2004), p. 1795

  158. 158.

    Ashworth (2002), also see: Mertus (1999).

  159. 159.

    Moir and Jessel (1995).

  160. 160.

    Schaechter et al. (2006).

  161. 161.

    Professor Henry Greely (Stanford Law School), “Can MRIs Help Solve Crimes” National Public Radio interview, May 14, 2010 with Paul Raeburn.

References

  • Aldrich J (1995) Correlations genuine and spurious in Pearson and Yule. Stat Sci 10(4):364–376, 1

    Google Scholar 

  • ANU Law Department (2010) Components of criminal offences: mens rea. Aust Natl Univ. http://law.anu.edu.au/criminet/notes.html. Accessed September 2010

  • Ashworth A (2002) Responsibilities, rights and restorative justice. Br J Criminol 42(3):578–595

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker G (2009) Neuroscience and the law: real potential with a healthy dose of caution. West Virginia Law Rev:3(2)

    Google Scholar 

  • Batts S (2009) Brain lesions and their implications in criminal responsibility. Behav Sci Law 27:261–272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • FE Bloom (2010) Does neuroscience give us new insights into drug addiction? A judge’s guide to neuroscience: a concise introduction, vol 1. University of California, Berkeley, pp 42–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Briody M (2004) The effects of DNA evidence on homicide cases in court. Aust N Z J Criminol 37:231–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown T, Murphy E (2010) Through a scanner darkly: functional neuroimaging as evidence of a criminal defendant’s past mental states. Stanford Law Rev 62(4):1119–1130

    Google Scholar 

  • Caudill DS (2010) Expert scientific testimony in courts: the ideal and illusion of value-free science. The Pantaneto Forum:39. Accessed at: http://www.pantaneto.co.uk/issue39/caudill.htm

  • Chen I (2009) The court will now call its expert witness: the brain. Stanford Lawyer 81:1

    Google Scholar 

  • Cournos F, Bavaniss DL (2003) Clinical education and treatment planning: a multimodal approach. In: (Wiley) (June 9, 2003). Tasman A, Kay J, Lieberman JA (eds) Psychiatry, vol 478, 2nd edn

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickson K, McMahon M (2005) Will the law come running? The potential role of ‘brain fingerprinting’ in crime investigation and adjudication in Australia. JLM 13:204

    Google Scholar 

  • Doidge N (2009) Science writer Norman Doidge’s right brain quizzes his left brain about their newly discovered elasticity. The Australian. http://www.fastforword.com.au/Content_Common/ns-Dr-Norman-Doidge-Speaks-to-The-Australian-about-Brain-Plasticity.seo. Accessed 16 May 2009

  • Easteal PW, Easteal S (1990) The forensic use of DNA profiling. Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, vol. 26. Australian Institute of Criminology, Canberra. Accessed at: http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/currentseries/tandi/21-40/tandi26.aspx

  • Edmond G, Biber K, Kemp R, Porter G (2008) Law’s looking glass: expert identification evidence derived from photographic and video images. Curr Issues Crim Justice 20:37–77

    Google Scholar 

  • Farwell L (1999) Farwell brain fingerprinting: a new paradigm in criminal investigations. Brain fingerprinting laboratory Inc: see http://www.brainwavescience.com/. Accessed 17 February 2011

  • Fodor J (2003) Hume variations. Oxford University Press, New York, p 134

    Google Scholar 

  • Freckleton I, Selby H (2009) Expert evidence: law, practice, procedure and advocacy, 4th edn. Lawbook Co, Sydney, p 52

    Google Scholar 

  • Freund HJ (2002) fMRI studies of the sensory and motor areas involved in movement. Adv Exp Med Biol 508:389–395

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodman-Delahunty J, Hewson L (2010) Enhancing fairness in DNA jury trials. Trends and issues in crime and criminal justice, vol 392. Australia Institute of Criminology, Canberra, pp 1–6

    Google Scholar 

  • Greely HT, Iles J (2007) Neuroscience-based lie detection: the urgent need for regulation. Am J Law Med 33:377

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene J, Cohen J (2004) For the law, neuroscience changes nothing and everything. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 359:1775–1778

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagan K (2009) DNA fiasco: rape conviction quashed. The Sydney Morning Herald. http://www.theage.com.au/national/dna-fiasco-rape-conviction-quashed-20091207-kfc3.html, October 2010. Accessed 8 December 2009

  • Hocking BA, Manville LL (2001) What of the right to silence: still supporting the presumption of innocence, or a growing legal fiction? [2001] Mq LawJl 3; (2001) 1 Macquarie Law Journal 63

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodgson D (2000) Guilty mind or guilty brain? Criminal responsibility in the age of neuroscience. Aust Law J 74:661–680

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalver H, Zeisel H (1966) The American Jury. New Society, 25 August 1966, p 290. Accessed via: Law Reform Commission, The Jury’s Verdict, Discussion Paper 12 (1985) - Criminal procedure: the jury in a criminal trial. http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lrc.nsf/pages/DP12CHP9

  • Kiehl K (2010) Can Neuroscience Identify Psychopaths? in A Judge’s Guide to Neuroscience: a Concise Introduction, 47 (sage center for the study of the mind, 2010)

    Google Scholar 

  • Leenaghan N, Guerrera O (2005) Call for brainfingerprinting. The Age (30 September 2005)

    Google Scholar 

  • Libet B (1999) Do we have free will? J Conscious Stud 6(8–9):47–57

    Google Scholar 

  • Maibom HL (2008) The mad, the bad, and the psychopath. Neuroethics 1:167–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marchetti G (2005) Commentary on Benjamin Libet’s Mind Time. The temporal factor in consciousness. Accessed at: http://www.mind-consciousness-language.com/Commentary%20Libet%20Mind%20Time.pdf

  • Mayberg H (2010) Does neuroscience give us new insights into criminal responsibility? A judge’s guide to neuroscience: a concise introduction. University of California, Berkeley, pp 37–51

    Google Scholar 

  • McKenna M 2009 Compatibilism. Stanford encyclopaedia of philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/. Accessed 5 October 2009

  • Mertus J (1999) From leal transplants to transformative justice: human rights and the promise of transnational civil society. Accessed at: http://www.auilr.org/pdf/14/14-5-2.pdf

  • Mobbs D, Lau HC, Jones OD, Frith CD (2007) Law, Responsibility, and the Brain. PLoS Biology 5(4):e103

    Google Scholar 

  • Moir A, Jessel D (1995) A mind to crime. Michael Joseph, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Moriarty JC (2008) Flickering admissibility: neuroimaging evidence in the U.S courts. Behav Sci Law 26:29–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morse S (2008) Determinism and the death of folk psychology: two challenges to responsibility from neuroscience. Paper given at Deinard Memorial Lecture in Law and Medicine, pp 1–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller JL, Sommer M, Döhnel K, Weber T, Schmidt-Wilcke T, Hajak G (2008) Disturbed prefrontal and temporal brain function during emotion and cognition interaction in criminal psychopathy. Behav Sci Law 26:131–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nagel T (1974) What is it like to be a bat? The Philos Rev 83:435–450

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norrie A (1991) Law, ideology and punishment. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 148–149

    Google Scholar 

  • Reimer M (2008) Psychopathy without (the language of) disorder. Neuroethics 1:185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosen J (2007) Grey matters. The Sydney Morning Herald, April 6–8 2007, p 39

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruprecht CH (1997) Are verdicts, too, like sausages?: lifting the cloak of jury secrecy. University of Pennsylvania Law Rev 146:217

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell P (2007) Hume on free will. Stanford encyclopaedia of philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume-freewill/. Accessed 14 December 2007

  • Sapolsky RM (2004) The frontal cortex and the criminal justice system. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 359(1451):1787–1796

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schaechter JD, Moore CI, Connell BD, Rosen BR, Dijkhuizen RM (2006) Structural and functional plasticity in the somatosensory cortex of chronic stroke patients. Brain 129:2722–2733

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seaman J (2009) Black Boxes. Emory Law J 58:427–484. Accessed at: http://www.law.emory.edu/fileadmin/journals/elj/58/58.2/Seaman.pdf

  • Shapiro BJ (1986) “To A Moral Certainty”: theories of knowledge and Anglo-American Juries 1600–1850. Hastings Law J 38:153

    Google Scholar 

  • Shen F, Jones O (2011) Brain scans as Evidence: Truths, Proofs, Lies and Lessons. (February 23, 2011) Mercer Law Rev, Vol 62, 2011

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson J (2008) Functional MRI lie-detection: too good to be true? J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 36(4):491–498

    Google Scholar 

  • Vincent N (2010) Madness, badness and neuroimaging-based responsibility assessments. Law Neurosci Curr Legal Issues 13(1):15–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Wainer J (2010) Abortion case proves need for law change. Sydney Morning Herald. http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/abortion-case-proves-need-for-law-change-20101017-16p0u.html. Accessed 18 October 2010

  • Wandell BA, Smirnakis SM (2009) Plasticity and stability of visual fieldmaps in adult primary visual cortex. Nat Rev Neurosci 10:873–884

    Google Scholar 

  • Wegner DM (2005) Who is the controller of controlled processes?. In: Hassin RR, Uleman JS, Bargh JA (eds) The new unconscious. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 19–20

    Google Scholar 

  • White AE (2010) The lie of fMRI: an examination of the ethics of a market in lie-detection using functional magnetic resonance imaging. HEC Forum 22(3):253–266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang Y, Raine A (2009) Prefrontal structural and functional brain imaging findings in antisocial, violent, and psychopathic individuals: A meta-analysis. Psychiatry Res 174:81–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Technology Sydney, 123, Broadway, Sydney, NSW, 2007, Australia

    Leanne Houston & Amy Vierboom

Authors
  1. Leanne Houston
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Amy Vierboom
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Leanne Houston .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Institute of Science and Ethics, University of Bonn, Bonner Talweg 57, Bonn, 53113, Germany

    Tade Matthias Spranger

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Houston, L., Vierboom, A. (2012). Neuroscience and Law: Australia. In: Spranger, T. (eds) International Neurolaw. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21541-4_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation