Bizzi, E., Hyman, S. E., et al. (2009). Using imaging to identify deceit: Scientific and ethical questions. Cambridge, MA: American Academy of Arts and Sciences.
Google Scholar
Blair, R. J. R. (2007). What emotional responding is to blame it might not be to responsibility. Philosophy, Psychiatry & Psychology,
14(2), 149–151.
Article
Google Scholar
Bomann-Larsen, L. (2011). Voluntary rehabilitation? on neurotechnological behavioural treatment, valid consent and (In)appropriate offers. Neuroethics (OnlineFirst). doi:10.1007/s12152-011-9105-9.
Burgess, A. (2000). A clockwork orange (with an introduction by Blake Morrison). London: Penguin Books Ltd.
Chandler, J. A. (2010). Reading the judicial mind: Predicting the courts’ reaction to the use of neuroscientific evidence for lie detection. Dalhousie Law Journal,
33(1), 85–116.
Google Scholar
Coukell, A. (2006). No more lies. Proto: 32–7.
Dahan-Katz, L. (forthcoming). The implications of heuristics and biases research on moral and legal responsibility: A case against the reasonable person standard. Neuroscience and Legal Responsibility. N. Vincent, OUP.
Davies, P. (forthcoming). Skepticism concerning human agency: Sciences of the self vs. ‘voluntariness’ in the law. In N. Vincent (Ed.), Neuroscience and Legal Responsibility. OUP.
Eagleman, D. M. (2008). Neuroscience and the Law. Houston Lawyer,
16(6), 36–40.
Google Scholar
Farah, M. J., Illes, J., et al. (2004). Neurocognitive enhancement: what can we do and what should we do? Nature Reviews Neuroscience,
5(5), 421–425.
Article
Google Scholar
Farahany, N. A. (2012). Incriminating thoughts. Stanford Law Review,
64, 351–408.
Google Scholar
Farisco, M., & Petrini, C. (2012). The impact of neuroscience and genetics on the law: A recent Italian case. Neuroethics OnlineFirst: 1–3. doi:10.1007/s12152-012-9152-x.
Feresin, E. (2009). Lighter sentence for murderer with ‘bad genes’. Nature News. doi:10.1038/news.2009.1050.
Fine, C., & Kennett, J. (2004). Mental impairment, moral understanding and criminal responsibility: Psychopathy and the purposes of punishment. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry,
27(5), 425–443.
Article
Google Scholar
Fox, D. (2011). The right to silence protects mental control. Law and Neuroscience, Current Legal Issues, 13. M. Freeman. Oxford, UK, OUP: 335–66.
Gazzaniga, M. S. (2008). The law and neuroscience. Neuron
60(November 6): 412–415.
Google Scholar
Glannon, W. (2008). Psychopharmacological enhancement. Neuroethics,
1(1), 45–54.
Article
Google Scholar
Glannon, W. (2011). Diminishing and enhancing free will. AJOB Neuroscience,
2(3), 15–26.
Article
Google Scholar
Goodenough, O. R., & Tucker, M. (2010). Law and cognitive neuroscience. Annual Review of Law and Social Science,
6, 61–92.
Article
Google Scholar
Greely, H. T. (2008). Neuroscience and criminal justice: Not responsibility but treatment. University of Kansas Law Review,
56, 1103–1138.
Google Scholar
Greely, H. T. (2009). Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men?: Behavioral genomics, neuroscience, criminal law, and the search for hidden knowledge. The Impact of Behavioral Sciences on Criminal Law. N. A. Farahany. New York, NY, OUP: 161–79.
Greely, H. T. (2012). Direct brain interventions to treat disfavored human behaviors: Ethical and social issues. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics,
91(2), 163–165.
Article
Google Scholar
Greene, J., & Cohen, J. D. (2004). For the law, neuroscience changes nothing and everything. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London: 1775–1785. doi:10.1098/rstb.2004.1546.
Haji, I. (2010). Psychopathy, ethical perception, and moral culpability. Neuroethics,
3(2), 135–150.
Article
Google Scholar
Hirstein, W., & Sifferd, C. (2011). The legal self: Executive processes and legal theory. Consciousness and Cognition,
2, 156–171.
Article
Google Scholar
Houston, L., & Vierboom, A. (2012). Neuroscience and law: Australia. International Neurolaw. T. M. Spranger. Heidelberg, DE, Springer: 11–42.
Jones, O. D. (2004). Law, evolution and the brain: applications and open questions. Law and the Brain. S. Zeki and O. R. Goodenough. New York, Oxford University Press: 57–75.
Jones, O. D., & Buckholtz, J. W., et al. (2009). Brain imaging for legal thinkers: A guide for the perplexed. Stanford Technology Law Review: 5. Accessed on May 29, 2012 at http://stlr.stanford.edu/pdf/jones-brain-imaging.pdf.
Kaplan, J. (2009). Misinformation, misrepresentation, and misuse of human behavioral genetics research. The Impact of Behavioral Sciences on Criminal Law. N. A. Farahany. New York, NY, OUP: 45–80.
Lekovic, G. P. (2008). Neuroscience and the law. Surgical Neurology,
69, 99–101.
Article
Google Scholar
Levy, N. (2007). Neuroethics: Challenges for the 21st century. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK.
Book
Google Scholar
Levy, N. (forthcoming). Moral responsibility and consciousness: two challenges, one solution. Neuroscience and Legal Responsibility. N. Vincent, OUP.
Lewis, C. S. (1963). The humanitarian theory of punishment. Res Judicatae,
6, 224–230.
Google Scholar
Martell, D. A. (1992). Forensic neuropsychology and the criminal law. Law and Human Behavior,
16(3), 313–336.
Article
Google Scholar
Mobbs, D., Lau, H. C., et al. (2007). Law, responsibility, and the brain. PLoS Biology,
5(4), 693–700.
Article
Google Scholar
Morse, S. J. (2006). Brain overclaim syndrome and criminal responsibility: A diagnostic note. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law,
3, 397–412.
Google Scholar
Nishimoto, S., Vu, A. T., et al. (2011). Reconstructing visual experiences from brain activity evoked by natural movies. Current Biology,
21(19), 1641–1646.
Article
Google Scholar
Prado, M. S., & Patterson, D. (2010). Philosophical foundations of law and neuroscience. University of Illinois Law Review,
4, 1211–1250.
Google Scholar
Rosen, J. (2007). The brain on the stand. The New York Times.
The Royal Society. (2011). Brain waves module 4: Neuroscience and the law. London, UK: The Royal Society.
Google Scholar
Tovino, S. A. (2007). Functional neuroimaging and the law: Trends and directions for future scholarship. The American Journal of Bioethics,
7(9), 44–56.
Article
Google Scholar
Vedder, A., & Klaming, L. (2010). Human enhancement for the common good—using neurotechnologies to improve eyewitness memory. AJOB Neuroscience,
1(3), 22–33.
Article
Google Scholar
Vincent, N. (2010). On the relevance of neuroscience to criminal responsibility. Criminal Law and Philosophy,
4(1), 77–98.
Article
Google Scholar
Vincent, N. (forthcoming). Enhancing responsibility. In N. Vincent (Ed.), Neuroscience and Legal Responsibility. OUP.