Neuroethics

, Volume 5, Issue 3, pp 317–319 | Cite as

The Impact of Neuroscience and Genetics on the Law: A Recent Italian Case

Brief Communication

Abstract

The use of genetic testing and neuroscientific evidence in legal trials raises several issues. Often their interpretation is controversial: the same evidence can be used to sustain both the prosecution’s and defense’s argument. A recent Italian case confirms such concerns and stresses other relevant related questions.

Keywords

Neuroscience Genetics Law Biolaw 

References

  1. 1.
    Feresin, E. 2009. Lighter sentence for murderer with ‘bad genes’. Nature. doi:10.1038/news.2009.1050.
  2. 2.
    Petrini, C. 2010. Ethical, legal, and social implications of behavioral genetics. AJOB Neuroscience 1(4): 19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Appelbaum, P.S. 2005. Behavioral genetics and the punishment of crime. Law & Psychiatry 56: 25–27.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Green, J., and J. Cohen. 2004. For the law, neuroscience changes nothing and everything. Philosophical Transaction of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 359(1451): 1775–1785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Caspi, A., J. McClay, T.E. Moffitt, J. Mill, J. Martin, I.W. Craig, A.M. Taylor, and R. Poulton. 2002. Role of genotype in the cycle of violence in maltreated children. Science 297(5582): 851–854.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hart, H.L.A. 1968. Punishment and responsibility. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mykitiuk, R., M. Pioro, L. Finker, and J. Nisker. 2011. The potential for misusing “genetic predisposition” in Canadian courts and tribunals. CMAJ 183(14): 1601–1604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rose, S. 1997. Lifelines: Biology beyond determinism. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Crawford, M.B. 2010. The limits of neuro-talk. In Scientific and philosophical perspectives in Neuroethics, ed. J. Giordano and B. Gordijn, 355–369. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Vincent, N.O. 2010. On the relevance of neuroscience to criminal responsibility. Criminal Law and Philosophy 4: 77–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bennett, M., and P. Hacker. 2003. Philosophical foundations of neuroscience. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tovino, S.A. 2007. Functional neuroimaging and the law: Trends and directions for future scholarship. The American Journal of Bioethics 7(9): 44–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Biogem Genetic Research InstituteAriano IrpinoItaly
  2. 2.Italian National Institute of HealthRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations