Advertisement

Ethical Theory and Moral Practice

, Volume 17, Issue 4, pp 819–829 | Cite as

Neurolaw: Neuroscience, Ethics, and Law. Review Essay

  • Gerben Meynen
Article

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.

Keywords

Neuroethics Neurolaw Neuroscience Law Criminal responsibility 

References

  1. 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 1124:145–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bennett MR, Hacker PMS (2003) Philosophical foundations of neuroscience. Blackwell Pub, MaldenGoogle Scholar
  3. 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 YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Craigie G, Coram A (2013) Irrationality, mental capacities, and neuroscience. In: Vincent NA (ed) Neuroscience and legal responsibility. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. 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 YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. 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 YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. 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 YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Gavaghan C (2013) Neuroscience, deviant appetites, and the criminal law. In: Vincent NA (ed) Neuroscience and legal responsibility. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. 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 YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Greene J, Cohen J (2004) For the law, neuroscience changes nothing and everything. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 359(1451):1775–1785CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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 YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Levy N (2007) Neuroethics. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Libet B (2002) The timing of mental events: Libet’s experimental findings and their implications. Conscious Cogn 11(2):291–299, discussion 304–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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):93–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Meynen G, Oei K (2011) Internationalizing forensic assessments of criminal responsibility. Med Law 30(4):529–534Google Scholar
  16. Morse S (2005) Brain overclaim syndrome and criminal responsibility: a diagnostic note. Ohio State J Crim Law 3:397–412Google Scholar
  17. Morse SJ (2013) Common criminal law compatibilism. In: Vincent NA (ed) Neuroscience and legal responsibility. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. 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 YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. 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):67–99Google Scholar
  20. Pardo MS, Patterson D (2013) Minds, brains, and law. The conceptual foundations of law and neuroscience. Oxford University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Simon RJ, Ahn-Redding H (2006) The insanity defense, the world over. Lexington Books, LanhamGoogle Scholar
  22. Spranger TM (ed) (2012) International neurolaw. A comparative analysis. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  23. Vincent NA (ed) (2013) Neuroscience and legal responsibility. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Vincent NA (2014) Neurolaw and direct brain interventions. Crim Law Philos 8:43–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Books

  1. 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: £48.99Google Scholar
  2. 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: £55.00Google Scholar
  3. Vincent NA (ed) (2013) Neuroscience and legal responsibility. Oxford University Press, New York. 368 pages. ISBN 978-0-19-992560-5. Price: £38.99Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of PhilosophyVU University AmsterdamAmsterdamNetherlands
  2. 2.Tilburg Law School, Tilburg UniversityTilburgNetherlands

Personalised recommendations