Neurolaw pp 167-212 | Cite as

Criminal Law Issues

Chapter

Abstract

Acquisitions coming from cognitive neuroscience about the way our mind works and the close link between mind and brain require both to the lawyer in general, but even more to the criminal lawyer, to ask himself some basic questions about the correspondence between the current criminal law and the modern idea of human being.

In fact, a criminal law that aspires to be truly democratic, it is to say that wishes to consider the human being as end in himself and not as here mean (Kant), it will not (be) contemplated without an accurate knowledge of the man himself.

Therefore, the question is whether the acquisitions of neuroscience—virtually putting in crisis the traditional categories of criminal law, such as free will—can also put in crisis the traditional categories of criminal law, or whether they require a serious afterthought of their own.

Keywords

Depression Schizophrenia Marketing Hunt Prefix 

References

  1. Arangio-Ruiz V (1984) Storia del diritto romano. Jovene, NapoliGoogle Scholar
  2. Bandes S (2009) Victims, “Closure”, and the sociology of emotions. Vermont Law Rev 33Google Scholar
  3. Bertolino M (2008) Il breve cammino del vizio di mente. Un ritorno al paradigma organicistico? CriminaliaGoogle Scholar
  4. Bianchi A (2009) Neuroscienze e diritto: spiegare di più per comprendere meglio. In: Bianchi A et al (eds) Manuale di neuroscienze forensi. Giuffrè, MilanGoogle Scholar
  5. Boella L (2008) Neuroetica. La morale prima della morale. Raffaello Cortina, MilanGoogle Scholar
  6. Chrovat T, McCabe K (2006) The brain and the law. In: Zeki S, Goodenough OR (eds) Law & the brain. Oxford University Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. Damasio AR (1995) L’errore di Cartesio. Emozione, ragione e cervello umano. Adelphi, MilanGoogle Scholar
  8. Di Giovine O (2009) Un diritto penale empatico? Diritto penale, bioetica e neuroetica. Giappichelli, TurinGoogle Scholar
  9. Eusebi L (1983) La “nuova” retribuzione. Riv. it. dir. proc. pen.Google Scholar
  10. Fiandaca G (1981) I presupposti della responsabilità penale tra dogmatica e scienze sociali. In: De Cataldo-Neuburger L (ed) La giustizia penale e la fluidità del sapere: ragionamento sul metodo. Cedam, PaduaGoogle Scholar
  11. Forza A (2009) Neuroscienze e diritto. Riv pen 3Google Scholar
  12. Frankel MS (2004) Foreword. In: Garland B (ed) Neuroscience and the law. Brain, mind, and the scales of justice. Dana Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Garland B (2004) Neuroscience and the law. A report. In: Garland B (ed) Neuroscience and the law. Brain, mind, and the scales of justice. Dana Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Gazzaniga MS, Steven MS (2004) Free will in the twenty-first century: a discussion of neuroscience and the law. In: Garland B (ed) Neuroscience and the law. Brain, mind, and the scales of justice. Dana Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Goodenough OR (2009) Institutions, emotions, and law: a goldilock problem for mechanism design. Vermont Law Rev 33Google Scholar
  16. Goodenough OR, Prehn K (2005) Un modello neuroscientifico del giudizio normativo nel diritto e nella giustizia (trans: Romeo F). i-lex 2Google Scholar
  17. Greene J, Cohen J (2006) For the law, neuroscience changes nothing and everything. In: Zeki S, Goodenough OR (eds) Law & the brain. Oxford University Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  18. Gulotta G (2009) La responsabilità penale nell’era delle neuroscienze. In: Bianchi A et al (eds) Manuale di neuroscienze forensi. Giuffrè, MilanoGoogle Scholar
  19. Hoffman BM (2006) The neuroeconomic path of the law. In: Zeki S, Goodenough OR (eds) Law & the brain. Oxford University Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  20. Jones OD (2006) Law, evolution and the brain: applications and open questions. In: Zeki S, Goodenough OR (eds) Law & the brain. Oxford University Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  21. Legrenzi P, Umiltà C (2009) Neuromania. Il cervello non spiega chi siamo. Il Mulino, BolognaGoogle Scholar
  22. Mantovani F (2007) Diritto penale, Parte generale. Cedam, PaduaGoogle Scholar
  23. Maroney TA (2006) Emotional competence, “Rational Understanding”, and the criminal defendant. Am Crim Law Rev 43Google Scholar
  24. Morse SJ (2004) New neuroscience, old problems. In: Garland B (ed) Neuroscience and the law. Brain, mind, and the scales of justice. Dana Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Morse SJ (2009) The neuroscience challenges to criminal responsibility. In: Santosuosso A (ed) Le neuroscienze e il diritto. Ibis, PaviaGoogle Scholar
  26. O’Hara EA (2006) How neuroscience might advance the law. In: Zeki S, Goodenough OR (eds) Law & the brain. Oxford University Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  27. Rocco A (1913) L’oggetto del reato e della tutela giuridica penale. Giappichelli, TurinGoogle Scholar
  28. Santosuosso A (2009) Il dilemma del diritto di fronte alle neuroscienze. Ibis, PaviaGoogle Scholar
  29. Santosuosso A, Bottalico B (2009) Neuroscienze e diritto: una prima mappa. Cedam, PaduaGoogle Scholar
  30. Spranger TM (2009) A German perspective on legal issues arising from neuroscientific research and application. In: Santosuosso A (ed) Le neuroscienze e il diritto. Ibis, PaviaGoogle Scholar
  31. Stake JE (2006) The property “instinct”. In: Zeki S, Goodenough OR (eds) Law & the brain. Oxford University Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  32. Tancredi L (2004) Neuroscience developments and the law. In: Garland B et al (eds) Neuroscience and the law. Brain, mind, and the scales of justice. Dana Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  33. Terracina D (2011) Neuroscience and penal law: ineffectiveness of the penal systems and flawed perception of the underevaluation of behaviour constituting crime. The particular case of crimes regarding intangible goods. In: Freeman M (ed) Law and neuroscience, current legal issues 2010, vol 13. Oxford University Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  34. Zak PJ (2006) A cognitive neuroscience framework for understanding casual reasoning and the law. In: Zeki S, Goodenough OR (eds) Law & the brain. Oxford University Press, LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland and G. Giappichelli Editore 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Law DepartmentUniversity of Rome “Tor Vergata”RomeItaly

Personalised recommendations