Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A recap on Italian neurolaw: epistemological and ethical issues

  • Published:
Mind & Society Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. A precursor case on the use of neuroimaging in Italian penal courtrooms may be that of Gianfranco Stevanin in the 90s in which the insanity defense made use of EEG, TAC and NMRI to establish a link between traumatic brain injury in frontal lobes and mental disorder (Fornari and Galliani 2003).

  2. Some headlines on major newspapers for the Trieste case, which interpreted the verdict as expressing a strong causal link between genes and crime, have been: A controversial penalty reduction (La Stampa, 2009, October 25); Penalty reduction for an Algerian murderer: genetically vulnerable, the “estrangement” of integration (Il Giornale, 2009, October 25); Reduced penalty for a murderer thanks to a gene: “He’s got a predisposition to aggressiveness” (La Repubblica, 2009, October, 26); Genetically vulnerable? A racist sentence (Messaggero Veneto, 2009, October 28); Are “bad” genes culpable of a crime? (Corriere della Sera, 2009, November 8) (our translation). Some others for the Como case: Being a murderer is a matter of DNA (Libero, 2011, May 14); A turn towards a forensic psychiatry (Avvenire, 2011, May 21); Insane brain, no life sentence (Avvenire, 2011, May 21); She killed her sister because of her brain structure (Corriere di Como, 2011, August 30); Cirmido, she killed her sister. “Altered genes” (La Provincia, 2011, August 30) (our translation).

  3. See also Denno (2013), who contests the idea of evidence derived from behavioral genetics in criminal trials as being a double-edged sword (Aspinwall et al. 2012) employable both as a mitigating and aggravating factor.

  4. Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) is the consolidated and widespread technique for enzymatic amplification of DNA sequences (Gibbs 1990).

  5. The defense chose the abbreviated trial procedure [giudizio abbreviato] which provides for the decision to be taken essentially on the basis of the case file as it stands. This automatically leads to a reduction of the penalty, which would otherwise have corresponded to 30 years imprisonment for this kind of crime. Moreover, in Como case, the judge decided not to take into account the aggravating circumstances and not to increase the penalty because of the defendant’s partial incapacity.

  6. This nosographic term was first introduced in DSM-IV in 1994.

  7. Also ethicists (e.g. Farisco and Petrini 2012, 2014; Santoni de Sio 2013) and some scientists (Forzano et al. 2010) showed reluctance, while journalists presented the cases in skeptical tones (see newspapers headlines in footnote 2). More recently, concerns about the Italian cases were expressed in the International debate as well (e.g. Baum 2013; González-Tapia and Obsuth 2015; Gkotsi and Gasser 2016). Unfortunately there are no data about public perception of neurolaw in Italy (for a U.S. survey see Shen and Gromet 2015). Very recently the Bar Association of Rome (Meeting, November 9, 2015) made available and recommended to Italian lawyers the reading of a Memorandum about legal capacities in the light of neuroscience, written by academics of related fields in October 2015 at the University of Padoa and to be updated every three years (http://www.ordineavvocatiroma.it/documenti/Minghelli%20-%20Patavino.pdf). Although presenting potentialities of the use of neurotechnologies in trials, the document discusses possible limitations, including worries about reductionist explanations.

  8. This formulation might not alarm consequentialists about punishment since they are only interested in the consequences of crimes (Greene and Cohen 2004, for a discussion in the U.S. debate). However Italian criminal system contains both retributivist and consequentialist approaches to punishment.

  9. See: http://www.nimh.nih.gov/research-priorities/rdoc/.

  10. For more recent references see footnote 7.

  11. Possible impacts of epigenetics on the law attracted recently legal scholars (see the special issue of the Behavioral Sciences & the Law vol. 33, no. 5; and the introduction to the issue by Gunter and Felthous 2015).

  12. See: http://www.governo.it/bioetica/pareri_abstract/neuroscienze_20101217_2.pdf.

  13. Genetic information sharing in the EU is regulated by Law 2009/85 which allowed for the creation of a National DNA Database but imposes several constrains: data may be acquired only on specific sets of subjects (art. 9), typically those arrested caught in the act or prosecuted; direct identification of subjects is not allowed (art. 12); and only judicial authorities may access data for identification (art. 12). Finally, in certain cases, the law authorizes the deletion of data (art. 13).

  14. In Italy the Data Protection Authority (DPA) (Garante per la protezione dei dati personali) is the independent authority with the role of protecting fundamental rights and freedom in connection with privacy and confidentiality.

  15. The Italian Supreme Court (Corte Suprema di Cassazione), the major court of last resort in Italy, ensures the correct application of law and resolves disputes among lower courts.

References

  • Agosta S, Sartori G (2013) The autobiographical IAT: a review. Front Psychol 4(519):1–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Akbarian S, Nestler E (2013) Epigenetic mechanisms in psychiatry. Neuropsychopharmacology 38(1):1–2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • American Psychiatric Association (APA) (2013) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of mental disorders (DSM-5). American Psychiatric Publishing, Washington, DC

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Andreasen NC (2007) DSM and the death of phenomenology in America: an example of unintended consequences. Schizophr Bull 33(1):108–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Annas GJ (2007) Foreword: imagining a new era of neuroimaging. Neuroethics, and neurolaw. Am JL Med 33:163–170

    Google Scholar 

  • Aspinwall LG, Brown TR, Tabery J (2012) The double-edged sword: does biomechanism increase or decrease judges’ sentencing of psychopaths? Science 846:848–849

    Google Scholar 

  • Baum ML (2013) The monoamine oxidase A (MAOA) genetic predisposition to impulsive violence: is it relevant to criminal trials? Neuroethics 6:287–306

  • Bechtel W (2008) Mental mechanisms: philosophical perspectives on cognitive neuroscience. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Bermúdez JL (2001) Normativity and rationality in delusional psychiatric disorders. Mind Lang 16:457–493

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bertolino M (2015) The insanity defense between neurological evidences and assessments of criminal responsibility. Rass Ital Crim 2:84–98

    Google Scholar 

  • Bianchi A, Gulotta G, Sartori G (2009) Manuale di neuroscienze forensi. Giuffré, Milan

    Google Scholar 

  • Boguski MS, Jones AR (2004) Neurogenomics: at the intersection of neurobiology and genome sciences. Nat Neurosci 7(5):429–433

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brunner HG (1996) MAOA deficiency and abnormal behavior: perspectives on an association. Ciba Found Symp 194:155–164

    Google Scholar 

  • 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):578–580

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buchman DZ, Illes J (2010) imaging genetics for our neurogenetic future. Minn J Law Sci Technol 11(1):79–97

    Google Scholar 

  • Buckholtz JW, Meyer-Lindenberg A (2008) MAOA and the neurogenetic architecture of human aggression. Trends Neurosci 31:120–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bush G, Luu P, Posner MI (2000) Cognitive and emotional influences in anterior cingulate cortex. Trends Cogn Sci 4(6):215–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calcedo-Barba A (2010) Objectivity and ethics in forensic psychiatry. Curr Opin Psychiatry 23:447–452

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calhoun MC (2008) Scientific evidence in court: Daubert or Frye, 15 years later. WLF 23(37). http://www.wlf.org/upload/08-22-08calhoun.pdf

  • Canzio G (2005) Prova scientifica, ricerca della “verità” e decisione giudiziaria nel processo penale. Rivista trimestrale di diritto e procedura civile 8:55–79

    Google Scholar 

  • 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):851–854

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cattaneo E, Corbellini G (2011) Science under politics. An Italian night mare. EMBO Rep 12:19–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clausen J, Levy N (eds) (2015) Handbook of neuroethics. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Corbellini G, Sirgiovanni E (2013) Tutta colpa del cervello: un’introduzione alla neuroetica. Mondadori, Milan

    Google Scholar 

  • Craver CF (2007) Explaining the brain: mechanisms and the mosaic unity of. neuroscience. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • D’Agostino F (2012) Jus quia iustum. Lezioni di filosofia del diritto e della religione. Giappichelli, Turin

    Google Scholar 

  • Damasio A (1994) Descartes’ error: emotion, reason and the human brain. Avon, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Denno DW (2005) Criminal law in a post-Freudian world. Ill Law Rev 3:601–697

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 317–354

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Denno DW (2011) Courts’ increasing consideration of behavioral genetics evidence in criminal cases: results of a longitudinal study. Mich State Law Rev 2011:967–1047

  • Denno DW (2013) What real-world criminal cases tell us about genetics. Hastings LJ 64:1591–1618

    Google Scholar 

  • Di Giovine O (2014) Neuroscienze (diritto penale). Enciclopedia del Diritto VII:721–734

    Google Scholar 

  • Eastman N, Campbell C (2006) Neuroscience and legal determination of criminal responsibility. Nat Rev Neurosci 7:311–318

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farisco M, Petrini C (2012) The impact of neuroscience and genetics on the law: a recent italian case. Neuroethics 5(3):317–319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farisco M, Petrini C (2014) On the stand. Another episode of neuroscience and law discussion from Italy. Neuroethics 7(2):243–245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farrell HM (2011) Dissociative identity disorder: medicolegal challenges. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 39:402–406

    Google Scholar 

  • Feresin E (2009) Lighter sentence for murderer with ‘bad genes’. Nat News. doi:10.1038/news.2009.1050

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feresin E (2011) Italian court reduces murder sentence based on neuroimaging data. Nat News Blog. http://blogs.nature.com/news/2011/09/italian_court_reduces_murder_s.html. Accessed 01 Sept 2011

  • Ferguson CI, Beaver KM (2009) Natural born killers: the genetic origins of extreme violence. Aggress Violent Behav 14(5):286–294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fornari U, Galliani I (2003) Il caso giudiziario di Gianfranco Stevanin. Centro Scientifico Editore, Turin

    Google Scholar 

  • 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):519–521

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foster MW, Royal CD, Sharp RR (2006) The routinization of genomics and genetics: implications for ethical practices. J Med Ethics 32:635–638

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fulford KWM, Thornton T, Graham G (2006) Oxford textbook of philosophy and psychiatry. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Garland B (ed) (2004) Neuroscience and the law. Dana Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Gazzaniga M (2005) The ethical brain. Dana Press, New York/Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Gazzaniga MS (2011) Who’s in charge? Free will and the science of the brain. Harper Collins, New York

  • Gibbs RA (1990) DNA amplification by the Polymerase Chain Reaction. Anal Chem 62(13):1202–1214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • González-Tapia MI, Obsuth I (2015) “Bad genes” & criminal responsibility. Int J Law Psychiatry 39:60–71

  • Greene J, Cohen J (2004) For the law, neuroscience changes nothing and everything. Phil Trans R Soc Lond 359:1775–1785

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gunter TD, Felthous AR (2015) Epigenetics and the law: introduction to this issue. Behav Sci Law 33(5):595–597

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huber CG, Huber J (2009) Epistemological considerations on neuroimaging. A crucial prerequisite for neuroethics. Bioethics 23(6):340–348

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Illes J (2007) Empirical neuroethics. Can brain imaging visualize human thought? Why is neuroethics interested in such a possibility? EMBO Rep 8:S57–S60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Illes J, Racine E (2005) Imaging or imagining? A neuroethics challenge informed by genetics. Am J Bioeth 5(2):5–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kandel ER (1998) A new intellectual framework for psychiatry. Am J Psychiatry 155:457–469

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khoshbin LS, Khoshbin S (2007) Imaging the mind, minding the image: an historical introduction to brain imaging and the law. Am JL Med 33:171–192

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 63–81

    Google Scholar 

  • Kupfier DJ, Regier DA (2011) Neuroscience, clinical evidence, and the future of psychiatric classification in DSM-5. Am J Psychiatry 168(7):672–674

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lavazza A, Sammicheli L (2012) Il delitto del cervello. Codice Edizioni, Turin

    Google Scholar 

  • Legrenzi P, Umiltà C (2011) Neuromania: on the limits of brain science (trans. F Anderson). Oxford University Press, Oxford

  • Macrì C (2000) Criminologia applicata. In: Serra C (ed) Proposte di criminologia applicata. Giuffré, Turin

    Google Scholar 

  • Merzagora Betsos I (2012) Colpevoli si nasce? Criminologia, determinismo, neuroscienze. Raffaello Cortina, Milan

    Google Scholar 

  • Morse SJ (2011) Lost in translation? An essay on law and neuroscience. In: Freeman M (ed) Law and neuroscience. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 529–562

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mozzoni M (2009) Neuroscienze forensi: la sentenza di Trieste. Interview to Pietro Pietrini. BrainFactor. http://www.brainfactor.it/?p=1359. Accessed 17 Nov 2009

  • Murphy D (2006) Psychiatry in the scientific image. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 103–117

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Palazzani L, Zannotti R (eds) (2013) Il diritto nelle neuroscienze. Non “siamo” i nostri cervelli. Giappichelli, Turin

  • Picozza E, Capraro L, Cuzzocrea V, Terracina D (2011) Neurodiritto: una introduzione. Giappichelli, Turin

    Google Scholar 

  • Pizzetti FG (2011) In quest of constitutional principles of “neurolaw”. Med Secoli 23(3):963–990

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 235–260

    Google Scholar 

  • Racine E (2010) Pragmatic neuroethics: improving treatment and understanding of the mind-brain. MIT Press, Cambridge

  • Roskies AL (2007) Neuroethics beyond genethics. EMBO Rep 8(S1):S52–S56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sammicheli L, Sartori G (2010) Delitto, geni, follia. In: Vignera R (ed) Neodarwinismo e scienze sociali. Franco Angeli, Milan

    Google Scholar 

  • Santoni de Sio F (2013) The progress of sciences and the concept of responsibility. Rass Ital Crim 7(1):62–69

    Google Scholar 

  • Santosuosso A (ed) (2009) Le neuroscienze e il diritto. Ibis, Pavia

    Google Scholar 

  • Santosuosso A, Bottalico B (2013) Neuroscience and behavioral genetics in the italian criminal proceedings, cases and perspectives. Rass Ital Crim 7(1):70–84

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 658:86–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sinnott-Armstrong W, Roskies AL, Brown T, Murphy E (2008) Brain images as legal evidence. Episteme 5:359–373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spranger TM (ed) (2012) International neurolaw: a comparative analysis. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Tairyan K, Illes J (2009) Imaging genetics and the power of combined technologies: a perspective from neuroethics. Neuroscience 164:7–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 32:165–191

    Google Scholar 

  • Vincent NA (2011) Madness, badness and neuroimaging-based responsibility assessment. In: Freeman M (ed) Law and neuroscience. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 79–96

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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 60:684–689

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Molecular Medicine, Faculty of Pharmacy and Medicine, Museum of History of Medicine, Sapienza University of Rome, Viale dell’Università 34/a, 00185, Rome, Italy

    Elisabetta Sirgiovanni & Gilberto Corbellini

  2. Institute of Biomedical Technologies Rome Section, National Research Council of Italy, Via dei Taurini 19, 00185, Rome, Italy

    Cinzia Caporale

Authors
  1. Elisabetta Sirgiovanni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gilberto Corbellini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Cinzia Caporale
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elisabetta Sirgiovanni.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sirgiovanni, E., Corbellini, G. & Caporale, C. A recap on Italian neurolaw: epistemological and ethical issues. Mind Soc 16, 17–35 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11299-016-0188-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11299-016-0188-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation