Mind & Society

, Volume 16, Issue 1–2, pp 17–35 | Cite as

A recap on Italian neurolaw: epistemological and ethical issues

  • Elisabetta SirgiovanniEmail author
  • Gilberto Corbellini
  • Cinzia Caporale


Italy is in the forefront of forensic neuroscience practice among European nations. In recent years, the country presented two major criminal cases, the Trieste Case in 2009 and the Como Case in 2011, which were the first cases employing neurogenetic and functional neuroimaging methods in European courts. In these paper we will discuss the consequences that an understanding of the neural and genetic determinants of human (mis)behavior will have on law, especially on the Italian legal context. Some claim that such consequences will actually be revolutionary, while others argue that legal doctrine assumptions won’t be undermined by neuroscientific findings. In the first section of the paper, we introduce the general debate and follow with a section devoted to the two Italian cases. In the third and final section, we discuss epistemological and ethical issues regarding Italian neurolaw. We defend a position which diverges from those prevailing in the debate. While negative outcomes and concerns were usually evidenced, we focus on positive changes coming with the new paradigm of interaction between neuroscience and the law. Our view is that these cases are clearly pioneering ones, anticipating what will happen in the courtrooms of the European Union in the whole, in the near future.


Neurogenetics Neuroscience Neurolaw Neuroethics Bioethics 



This work has been supported by the Italian Ministry of Education, University and Research (MIUR)’s Premium Project, “The Administration of Justice in Italy: the Case of Neurogenetics and Neuroscience”. We thank Prof. Adina Roskies for useful comments.


  1. Agosta S, Sartori G (2013) The autobiographical IAT: a review. Front Psychol 4(519):1–12Google Scholar
  2. Akbarian S, Nestler E (2013) Epigenetic mechanisms in psychiatry. Neuropsychopharmacology 38(1):1–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. American Psychiatric Association (APA) (2013) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of mental disorders (DSM-5). American Psychiatric Publishing, Washington, DCCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andreasen NC (2007) DSM and the death of phenomenology in America: an example of unintended consequences. Schizophr Bull 33(1):108–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Annas GJ (2007) Foreword: imagining a new era of neuroimaging. Neuroethics, and neurolaw. Am JL Med 33:163–170Google Scholar
  6. Aspinwall LG, Brown TR, Tabery J (2012) The double-edged sword: does biomechanism increase or decrease judges’ sentencing of psychopaths? Science 846:848–849Google Scholar
  7. Baum ML (2013) The monoamine oxidase A (MAOA) genetic predisposition to impulsive violence: is it relevant to criminal trials? Neuroethics 6:287–306Google Scholar
  8. Bechtel W (2008) Mental mechanisms: philosophical perspectives on cognitive neuroscience. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  9. Bechtel W, Stufflebeam RS (2001) Epistemic issues in procuring evidence about the brain: the importance of research instruments and techniques. In: Bechtel W, Mandik P, Mundale J, Stufflebeam RS (eds) Philosophy and the neurosciences: a reader. Basil, Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  10. Bermúdez JL (2001) Normativity and rationality in delusional psychiatric disorders. Mind Lang 16:457–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bertolino M (2015) The insanity defense between neurological evidences and assessments of criminal responsibility. Rass Ital Crim 2:84–98Google Scholar
  12. Bianchi A, Gulotta G, Sartori G (2009) Manuale di neuroscienze forensi. Giuffré, MilanGoogle Scholar
  13. Boguski MS, Jones AR (2004) Neurogenomics: at the intersection of neurobiology and genome sciences. Nat Neurosci 7(5):429–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brunner HG (1996) MAOA deficiency and abnormal behavior: perspectives on an association. Ciba Found Symp 194:155–164Google Scholar
  15. Brunner HG, Nelen M, Breakefield XO, Ropers HH, Van Oost BA (1993) Abnormal behavior associated with a point mutation in the structural gene for monoamine oxidase A. Science 262(5133):578–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Buchman DZ, Illes J (2010) imaging genetics for our neurogenetic future. Minn J Law Sci Technol 11(1):79–97Google Scholar
  17. Buckholtz JW, Meyer-Lindenberg A (2008) MAOA and the neurogenetic architecture of human aggression. Trends Neurosci 31:120–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Bush G, Luu P, Posner MI (2000) Cognitive and emotional influences in anterior cingulate cortex. Trends Cogn Sci 4(6):215–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Calcedo-Barba A (2010) Objectivity and ethics in forensic psychiatry. Curr Opin Psychiatry 23:447–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Calhoun MC (2008) Scientific evidence in court: Daubert or Frye, 15 years later. WLF 23(37).
  21. Canzio G (2005) Prova scientifica, ricerca della “verità” e decisione giudiziaria nel processo penale. Rivista trimestrale di diritto e procedura civile 8:55–79Google Scholar
  22. Caspi A, McCray J, Moffitt TE, Mill J, Martin J, Craig IW, Taylor A, Poulton R (2002) Role of genotype in the cycle of violence in maltreated children. Science 297(5582):851–854CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cattaneo E, Corbellini G (2011) Science under politics. An Italian night mare. EMBO Rep 12:19–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Clausen J, Levy N (eds) (2015) Handbook of neuroethics. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  25. Corbellini G, Sirgiovanni E (2013) Tutta colpa del cervello: un’introduzione alla neuroetica. Mondadori, MilanGoogle Scholar
  26. Craver CF (2007) Explaining the brain: mechanisms and the mosaic unity of. neuroscience. Clarendon Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. D’Agostino F (2012) Jus quia iustum. Lezioni di filosofia del diritto e della religione. Giappichelli, TurinGoogle Scholar
  28. Damasio A (1994) Descartes’ error: emotion, reason and the human brain. Avon, NYGoogle Scholar
  29. Denno DW (2005) Criminal law in a post-Freudian world. Ill Law Rev 3:601–697Google Scholar
  30. Denno DW (2009) Behavioral genetics evidence in criminal cases: 1994–2007. In: Farahany N (ed) The impact of behavioral science on criminal law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 317–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Denno DW (2011) Courts’ increasing consideration of behavioral genetics evidence in criminal cases: results of a longitudinal study. Mich State Law Rev 2011:967–1047Google Scholar
  32. Denno DW (2013) What real-world criminal cases tell us about genetics. Hastings LJ 64:1591–1618Google Scholar
  33. Di Giovine O (2014) Neuroscienze (diritto penale). Enciclopedia del Diritto VII:721–734Google Scholar
  34. Eastman N, Campbell C (2006) Neuroscience and legal determination of criminal responsibility. Nat Rev Neurosci 7:311–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Farisco M, Petrini C (2012) The impact of neuroscience and genetics on the law: a recent italian case. Neuroethics 5(3):317–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Farisco M, Petrini C (2014) On the stand. Another episode of neuroscience and law discussion from Italy. Neuroethics 7(2):243–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Farrell HM (2011) Dissociative identity disorder: medicolegal challenges. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 39:402–406Google Scholar
  38. Feresin E (2009) Lighter sentence for murderer with ‘bad genes’. Nat News. doi: 10.1038/news.2009.1050 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Feresin E (2011) Italian court reduces murder sentence based on neuroimaging data. Nat News Blog. Accessed 01 Sept 2011
  40. Ferguson CI, Beaver KM (2009) Natural born killers: the genetic origins of extreme violence. Aggress Violent Behav 14(5):286–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Fornari U, Galliani I (2003) Il caso giudiziario di Gianfranco Stevanin. Centro Scientifico Editore, TurinGoogle Scholar
  42. Forzano F, Borry P, Cambon-Thomsen A, Hodgson SV, Tibben A, de Vries P, van El C, Cornel M (2010) Italian appeal court: a genetic predisposition to commit murder? Eur J Hum Genet 18(5):519–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Foster MW, Royal CD, Sharp RR (2006) The routinization of genomics and genetics: implications for ethical practices. J Med Ethics 32:635–638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Fulford KWM, Thornton T, Graham G (2006) Oxford textbook of philosophy and psychiatry. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  45. Garland B (ed) (2004) Neuroscience and the law. Dana Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  46. Gazzaniga M (2005) The ethical brain. Dana Press, New York/Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  47. Gazzaniga MS (2011) Who’s in charge? Free will and the science of the brain. Harper Collins, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  48. Gibbs RA (1990) DNA amplification by the Polymerase Chain Reaction. Anal Chem 62(13):1202–1214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Gkotsi GM, Gasser J (2016) Critique de l’utilisation des Neurosciencesdans les expertises psychiatriques: le cas de la responsabilité pénale. Evol Psychiatr 81(2):e1–e12. doi: 10.1016/j.evopsy.2015.10.002
  50. González-Tapia MI, Obsuth I (2015) “Bad genes” & criminal responsibility. Int J Law Psychiatry 39:60–71Google Scholar
  51. Greene J, Cohen J (2004) For the law, neuroscience changes nothing and everything. Phil Trans R Soc Lond 359:1775–1785CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Gunter TD, Felthous AR (2015) Epigenetics and the law: introduction to this issue. Behav Sci Law 33(5):595–597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Huber CG, Huber J (2009) Epistemological considerations on neuroimaging. A crucial prerequisite for neuroethics. Bioethics 23(6):340–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Illes J (2007) Empirical neuroethics. Can brain imaging visualize human thought? Why is neuroethics interested in such a possibility? EMBO Rep 8:S57–S60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Illes J, Racine E (2005) Imaging or imagining? A neuroethics challenge informed by genetics. Am J Bioeth 5(2):5–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Kandel ER (1998) A new intellectual framework for psychiatry. Am J Psychiatry 155:457–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Khoshbin LS, Khoshbin S (2007) Imaging the mind, minding the image: an historical introduction to brain imaging and the law. Am JL Med 33:171–192Google Scholar
  58. Kirk SA, Cohen D, Gomory T (2015) DSM-5: the delayed demise of descriptive diagnosis. In: Demazeux S, Singy P (eds) The DSM-5 in perspective philosophical reflections on the psychiatric babel. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 63–81Google Scholar
  59. Kupfier DJ, Regier DA (2011) Neuroscience, clinical evidence, and the future of psychiatric classification in DSM-5. Am J Psychiatry 168(7):672–674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Lavazza A, Sammicheli L (2012) Il delitto del cervello. Codice Edizioni, TurinGoogle Scholar
  61. Legrenzi P, Umiltà C (2011) Neuromania: on the limits of brain science (trans. F Anderson). Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  62. Macrì C (2000) Criminologia applicata. In: Serra C (ed) Proposte di criminologia applicata. Giuffré, TurinGoogle Scholar
  63. Merzagora Betsos I (2012) Colpevoli si nasce? Criminologia, determinismo, neuroscienze. Raffaello Cortina, MilanGoogle Scholar
  64. Morse SJ (2011) Lost in translation? An essay on law and neuroscience. In: Freeman M (ed) Law and neuroscience. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 529–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Mozzoni M (2009) Neuroscienze forensi: la sentenza di Trieste. Interview to Pietro Pietrini. BrainFactor. Accessed 17 Nov 2009
  66. Murphy D (2006) Psychiatry in the scientific image. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  67. Murphy D (2009) Psychiatry and the concept of disease as pathology. In: Broome M, Bortolotti L (eds) Psychiatry as cognitive neuroscience. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 103–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Palazzani L, Zannotti R (eds) (2013) Il diritto nelle neuroscienze. Non “siamo” i nostri cervelli. Giappichelli, TurinGoogle Scholar
  69. Picozza E, Capraro L, Cuzzocrea V, Terracina D (2011) Neurodiritto: una introduzione. Giappichelli, TurinGoogle Scholar
  70. Pizzetti FG (2011) In quest of constitutional principles of “neurolaw”. Med Secoli 23(3):963–990Google Scholar
  71. Poland J, von Eckardt B, Spaulding W (1994) Problems with the DSM approach to classifying psychopathology. In: Graham G, Stephens GL (eds) Philosophical psychopathology. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 235–260Google Scholar
  72. Racine E (2010) Pragmatic neuroethics: improving treatment and understanding of the mind-brain. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  73. Roskies AL (2007) Neuroethics beyond genethics. EMBO Rep 8(S1):S52–S56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Sammicheli L, Sartori G (2010) Delitto, geni, follia. In: Vignera R (ed) Neodarwinismo e scienze sociali. Franco Angeli, MilanGoogle Scholar
  75. Santoni de Sio F (2013) The progress of sciences and the concept of responsibility. Rass Ital Crim 7(1):62–69Google Scholar
  76. Santosuosso A (ed) (2009) Le neuroscienze e il diritto. Ibis, PaviaGoogle Scholar
  77. Santosuosso A, Bottalico B (2013) Neuroscience and behavioral genetics in the italian criminal proceedings, cases and perspectives. Rass Ital Crim 7(1):70–84Google Scholar
  78. Shen FX, Gromet DM (2015) Red states, blue states, and brain states: issue framing, partisanship, and the future of neurolaw in the United States. Ann Am Acad Polit Soc Sci 658:86–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Sinnott-Armstrong W, Roskies AL, Brown T, Murphy E (2008) Brain images as legal evidence. Episteme 5:359–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Spranger TM (ed) (2012) International neurolaw: a comparative analysis. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  81. Tairyan K, Illes J (2009) Imaging genetics and the power of combined technologies: a perspective from neuroethics. Neuroscience 164:7–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Torjesen I (2013) Architect of DSM-5 rejects claims it will lead to labeling of more people as mentally ill. BMJ. doi: 10.1136/bmj.f3648 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Urruela Mora A (2010) Genetics as a relevant factor for the purpose of judging criminal imputability. Status of the issue and critical perspective. Considering particularly the Decision of the Trieste Court of Appeals (Italy) of September 18, 2009. Law Hum Genome Rev 32:165–191Google Scholar
  84. Vincent NA (2011) Madness, badness and neuroimaging-based responsibility assessment. In: Freeman M (ed) Law and neuroscience. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 79–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Widom CS, Brzustowicz LM (2006) MAOA and the ‘cycle of violence’: childhood abuse and neglect, MAOA genotype, and risk for violent and antisocial behavior. Biol Psychiatry 60:684–689CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elisabetta Sirgiovanni
    • 1
    Email author
  • Gilberto Corbellini
    • 1
  • Cinzia Caporale
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Molecular Medicine, Faculty of Pharmacy and Medicine, Museum of History of MedicineSapienza University of RomeRomeItaly
  2. 2.Institute of Biomedical Technologies Rome SectionNational Research Council of ItalyRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations