Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Criminal Procedure Issues

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Neurolaw

  • 543 Accesses

Abstract

The chapter focuses on the possible reflections of cognitive neuroscience within the criminal trial. On one hand neuroscientific methods in the perspective of judicial reconstructions of the fact will be considered; on the other hand how judges’ decision-making is influenced by emotion will be addressed.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Goodenough (2009), p. 44; Moreno (2009), p. 722; Wegner (2002).

  2. 2.

    Gazzaniga (2006), p. 5.

  3. 3.

    Libet (1999), p. 54; Algeri (2013). According to De Caro (2009), p. 152, the Libet’s experiment could be interpreted in a different way than the one illustrated above.

  4. 4.

    Ramachandran (1998).

  5. 5.

    Gazzaniga (2006), p. 96.

  6. 6.

    Gazzaniga and Steven (2005).

  7. 7.

    Gazzaniga and Steven (2005).

  8. 8.

    Pietrini (2007), p. 319.

  9. 9.

    Pietrini (2007), p. 320; Varraso (2014); Pizzetti (2012); Palazzani and Zannotti (2013).

  10. 10.

    Santosuosso and Bottalico (2009); Gulotta (2007); Gialuz (2014); Forza (2009); Morse (2004, 2006).

  11. 11.

    In June 2008 in India there was an isolated but very significant conviction of a man for murder, based on a “Beos Test”. Moreno (2009) and Farrell (2010).

  12. 12.

    Two decisions of the Italian Court of Cassation recognized the relevance of scientific evidence in the judicial system: Italian Court of Cassation (“Corte di cassazione”), S.U., July 10th 2002, n. 30328, in Foro italiano (2002) II, p.601; Italian Court of Cassation (“Corte di cassazione”), S.U., January 25th 2005, n. 9163, in Rivista penale (2006) 7–8, p. 827. In a different direction, more recently: Court of Venice (“Tribunale di Venezia, sezione G.i.p.”), January 24th 2013, in Rivista italiana di medicina legale, 2013, p. 1905.

  13. 13.

    The American Supreme Court in 2005 (Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551) declared that capital punishment to minors in unconstitutional according to neuroscientific studies regarding the fact that the area of the human brain capable of evaluating consequences of action is not fully developed until the age of 25.

  14. 14.

    Damaska (2003), p. 109.

  15. 15.

    Damaska (2003), Amodio and Cherif Bassiouni (1988), and Tonini (2007).

  16. 16.

    But the problem of admissibility of brain images as evidence had to be faced in the U.S.A. already in the sixties, when the question was if it was possible to use them to declare cerebral death: Annas (2007), Di Giovine (2011, 2013), Felicioni (2007), Di Chiara (2007), and Casasole (2012, 2013).

  17. 17.

    Rosen (2007).

  18. 18.

    Caspi et al. (2002), pp. 851–854; Nilson et al. (2006).

  19. 19.

    Assizes Court of Appeal in Trieste (“Corte d’Assise d’Appello di Trieste”), September 18th 2009, in Rivista penale (2010), p. 70; Sammicheli and Sartori (2010); Forza (2010).

  20. 20.

    See Genetics and Human Behavior: the Ethical Context (2002), Chapter 14 “Legal Responsibility”.

  21. 21.

    Pellegrini (2009), p. 79.

  22. 22.

    Pietrini (2007); Mobbs et al. (2009), p. 20.

  23. 23.

    Iacoboni (2008).

  24. 24.

    Gulotta (2009).

  25. 25.

    Infra, Chaps. 3 and 6.

  26. 26.

    Buckholtz et al. (2008).

  27. 27.

    See the already cited Roper v. Simmons (2005), 543 U.S. 551.

  28. 28.

    Bertolino (2009), p. 122; Bertolino (2014); Brusco (2007).

  29. 29.

    Fiandaca and Musco (1995), pp. 199 and 190.

  30. 30.

    Luberto (2007), p. 461.

  31. 31.

    Messina (2010), p. 353; Uttal (2009).

  32. 32.

    Westbury and Dennet (2000).

  33. 33.

    Schacter (1996).

  34. 34.

    Koustall et al. (1999).

  35. 35.

    Allport (1954); Banaji and Bashkar (2000), p. 150.

  36. 36.

    Schacter (1996).

  37. 37.

    Gazzaniga (2006).

  38. 38.

    Ferrua (2005), p. 9.

  39. 39.

    Office of Technology Assessment (November 1983). More recently: Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph, National Research Council (2003).

  40. 40.

    Sammicheli et al. (2009), p. 231.

  41. 41.

    Langleben et al. (2002).

  42. 42.

    Sartori et al. (2008).

  43. 43.

    Sartori and Agosta (2009), p. 174.

  44. 44.

    Sammicheli and Sartori (2010), p. 3314.

  45. 45.

    Italian exceptions to this approach are: Calogero (1964) and Massa (1964).

  46. 46.

    Nobili (1974); De Luca (1992), p. 1255.

  47. 47.

    Fiandaca (2008), p. 10.

  48. 48.

    Di Giovine (2006).

  49. 49.

    Goodenough and Decker (2009), p. 355.

  50. 50.

    Fassò (2006), p. 269.

  51. 51.

    Frank (2009).

  52. 52.

    Koenigs et al. (2007).

  53. 53.

    Nigro and Tonini (2008), p. 333.

  54. 54.

    Damasio (2008), p. 336.

  55. 55.

    Descartes (1956), p. 84.

  56. 56.

    Descartes (1956), pp. 341 and 309.

  57. 57.

    Damasio (2008), p. 245.

  58. 58.

    Damasio (2008), p. 19; de Sousa (1987).

  59. 59.

    Damasio (2008), p. 191.

  60. 60.

    Damasio (2008), p. 271; Pizarro (2000), p. 371.

  61. 61.

    Damasio (2008), pp. 188–189.

  62. 62.

    Capraro (2011), p. 407.

  63. 63.

    Myers et al. (2004), p. 40; Salerno and Bottoms (2009), p. 273.

  64. 64.

    That is the so-called Indiscriminant Punitiviness: Goldberg et al. (1999).

  65. 65.

    Goodenough and Prehn (2006).

  66. 66.

    Greene et al. (2001) and Heekeren et al. (2005).

  67. 67.

    Salerno and Bottoms (2009), p. 273; Goodenough and Prehn (2006), pp. 97–98.

  68. 68.

    Forza (2007), p. 372.

  69. 69.

    Maffei (2007), p. 416; Dominioni (2005); Ubertis (2007), p. 83; Canzio (2008), p. 483; Caprioli (2008), p. 3529; Intrieri (2010), p. 250.

  70. 70.

    Sammicheli and Sartori (2009), p. 25.

  71. 71.

    De Cataldo Neuburger (2009), p. 143.

  72. 72.

    Skolnick Weisberg et al. (2008).

  73. 73.

    Feigenson (2006), p. 246.

  74. 74.

    Legrenzi and Umiltà (2009), p. 74.

  75. 75.

    Dumit (1999).

  76. 76.

    Caprioli (2008), p. 3526.

  77. 77.

    Tancredi and Brodie (2008), p. 294.

  78. 78.

    Ubertis (2007), p. 87.

  79. 79.

    Legrenzi and Umiltà (2009).

  80. 80.

    Salerno and Bottoms (2009).

  81. 81.

    Fanuele (2009).

  82. 82.

    Ferrua (2008).

  83. 83.

    Zeki (2009).

References

  • Algeri L (2013) Accertamenti neuroscientifici, infermità mentale e credibilità delle dichiarazioni., Rivista italiana di medicina legale

    Google Scholar 

  • Allport G (1954) The nature of prejudice. Addison–Wesley, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Amodio E, Cherif Bassiouni M (eds) (1988) Il processo penale negli Stati Uniti d’America. Giuffrè, Milan

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Banaji MR, Bashkar R (2000) Implicit stereotypes and memory: the bounded rationality of social beliefs. Memory, brain and belief

    Google Scholar 

  • Bertolino M (2009) Il breve cammino del vizio di mente. In: Santosuosso A (ed) Le neuroscienze e il diritto. Ibis, Pavia

    Google Scholar 

  • Bertolino M (2014) Prove neuro-psicologiche di verità penale. In: Forti G et al (eds) “Verità” del precetto e della sanzione penale alla prova del processo. Jovene, Napoli

    Google Scholar 

  • Brusco C (2007) La valutazione della prova scientifica. In: De Cataldo Neuburger L (ed) La prova scientifica nel processo penale. Cedam, Padua

    Google Scholar 

  • Buckholtz JW et al (2008) The neural correlates of third-party-punishment. Neuron 60:930–940

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calogero G (1964) La logica del giudice e il suo controllo in Cassazione. Cedam, Padua

    Google Scholar 

  • Canzio G (2008) La revisione del processo: gli effetti del sopraggiungere di nuove prove rese possibili dal progresso scientifico. In: Balsamo A, Kostoris R (eds) Giurisprudenza europea e processo penale italiano. Giappichelli, Turin

    Google Scholar 

  • Capraro L (2011) The juridical role of emotions in the decisional process of popular juries. In: Freeman M (ed) Law and neuroscience. Oxford University Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Caprioli F (2008) La scienza “cattiva maestra”: le insidie della prova scientifica nel processo penale., Cassazione penale

    Google Scholar 

  • Casasole F (2012) Neuroscienze, genetica comportamentale e processo penale., Diritto penale e processo

    Google Scholar 

  • Casasole F (2013) Le indagini scientifiche nel processo penale. Dike, Roma

    Google Scholar 

  • Caspi A et al (2002) Role of genotype in the cycle of violence in maltreated children. Science 297

    Google Scholar 

  • Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph, National Research Council (2003) The Polygraph And Lie Detection

    Google Scholar 

  • Damasio A (2008) L’errore di Cartesio. Adelphi, Milan

    Google Scholar 

  • Damaska M (2003) Il diritto delle prove alla deriva. Zanichelli, Bologna

    Google Scholar 

  • De Caro M (2009) Libertà umana, causalità, neuroetica. Enciclopedia del XXI secolo, vol II. Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana, Treccani, Roma

    Google Scholar 

  • De Cataldo Neuburger L (2009) Neuroscienze e diritto penale. La scienza come, quando e perché. In: Santosuosso A (ed) Le neuroscienze ed il diritto. Ibis, Pavia

    Google Scholar 

  • De Luca G (1992) Il sistema delle prove penali e il principio del libero convincimento nel nuovo rito., Rivista italiana di diritto e procedura penale

    Google Scholar 

  • De Sousa R (1987) The rationality of emotion. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Descartes R (1956) Discorso sul metodo. La nuova Italia, Florence

    Google Scholar 

  • Di Chiara G (2007) Il canto delle sirene. Processo penale e modernità scientifico-tecnologica: prova dichiarativa e diagnostica della verità. Criminalia

    Google Scholar 

  • Di Giovine O (2006) L’interpretazione nel diritto penale tra creatività e vincolo alla legge. Giuffrè, Milan

    Google Scholar 

  • Di Giovine O (2011) Chi ha paura delle neuroscienze? Archivio penale

    Google Scholar 

  • Di Giovine O (ed) (2013) Diritto penale e neuroetica. Cedam, Padua

    Google Scholar 

  • Dominioni O (2005) La prova penale scientifica. Giuffrè, Milan

    Google Scholar 

  • Dumit J (1999) Objective brains, prejudicial images. Sci Context 12:173–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fanuele C (2009) Dati genetici e procedimento penale. Cedam, Padua

    Google Scholar 

  • Farrell B (2010) Can’t get you out of my head: the human rights implications of using brain scans as criminal evidence. Interdiscip J Hum Rights Law 4:89

    Google Scholar 

  • Fassò G (2006) Storia della filosofia del diritto, III. Ottocento e Novecento. Laterza, Roma-Bari

    Google Scholar 

  • Feigenson N (2006) Brain imaging and courtroom evidence: on the admissibility and persuasiveness of FMRI. Int J Law Context 3:246

    Google Scholar 

  • Felicioni P (2007) Considerazioni sul prelievo di materiale biologico dall’imputato. In: De Cataldo Neuburger L (ed) La prova scientifica nel processo penale. Cedam, Padua

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferrua P (2005) Il Giusto processo. Zanichelli, Bologna

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferrua P (2008) Metodo scientifico e processo penale. Diritto penale e processo 6

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiandaca G (2008) Il diritto penale giurisprudenziale tra orientamenti e disorientamenti. Editoriale Scientifica, Napoli

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiandaca G, Musco E (1995) Diritto penale. Parte Generale. Zanichelli, Bologna

    Google Scholar 

  • Forza A (2007) L’approccio convenzionalista del sapere giuridico e gli apporti delle neuroscienze nel processo. In: De Cataldo Neuburger L (ed) La prova scientifica nel processo penale. Cedam, Padua

    Google Scholar 

  • Forza A (2009) Neuroscienze e diritto. Rivista penale 3:248

    Google Scholar 

  • Forza A (2010) Le neuroscienze entrano nel processo penale. Rivista penale 1:75

    Google Scholar 

  • Frank J (2009) Law and the modern mind. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick/London

    Google Scholar 

  • Gazzaniga MS (2006) La mente etica. Codice edizioni, Torino

    Google Scholar 

  • Gazzaniga MS, Steven MS (2005) Cervelli in tribunale in Mente e cervello n. 17

    Google Scholar 

  • Gialuz M (2014) L’accesso al corpo mediante strumenti diagnostici. In: Scalfati A (ed) Le indagini atipiche. Giappichelli, Turin

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg JH et al (1999) Rage and reason: the psychology of the intuitive prosecutor. Eur J Soc Psychol 29:781–795

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodenough OR (2009) Neuroscientific developments as a legal challenge. In: Santosuosso A (ed) Le Neuroscienze e il diritto. Ibis, Pavia

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodenough OR, Decker G (2009) Why do good people steal intellectual property? In: Freeman M, Goodenough OR (eds) Law, mind and brain. Ashgate, Burlington

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodenough OR, Prehn K (2006) A neuroscientific approach to normative judgment in law and justice. In: Zeki S, Goodenough O (eds) Law & the brain. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene JD et al (2001) An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment. Science 293:2105–2108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gulotta G (2007) Dal giusto processo al processo giusto, psicologicamente parlando. In: De Cataldo Neuburger L (ed) La prova scientifica nel processo penale. Cedam, Padua

    Google Scholar 

  • Gulotta G (2009) La responsabilità penale nell’epoca delle neuroscienze. In: Bianchi A et al (eds) Manuale di neuroscienze forensi. Giuffè, Milan

    Google Scholar 

  • Heekeren HR et al (2005) Influence of bodily harm on neural correlates of semantic and moral decision making. NeuroImage 24:887–897

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iacoboni M (2008) I neuroni specchio. Come capiamo ciò che fanno gli altri. Bollati Boringhieri, Milan

    Google Scholar 

  • Intrieri C (2010) Neuroscienze e processo penale. L’era dell’“Habeas mentem”. In: Gulotta G, Curci A (eds) Mente, società e diritto. Giuffrè, Milan

    Google Scholar 

  • Koenigs M et al (2007) Damage to the prefrontal cortex increases utilitarian model judgments. Nature 446:908–911

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koustall W et al (1999) Facilitation and impairment of event memory produced by photograph review. Memory Cognit 27(3):478–493

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langleben DD et al (2002) Brain activity during simulated reception: an event-related functional magnetic resonance study. NeuroImage 15:727–732

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Legrenzi P, Umiltà C (2009) Neuro-mania. Il cervello non spiega chi siamo. Il Mulino, Bologna

    Google Scholar 

  • Libet B (1999) Do we have free will? J Conscious Stud 8–9:47–57

    Google Scholar 

  • Luberto S (2007) Problematiche metodologiche delle perizie e delle consulenze psichiatriche nei procedimenti penali. In: De Cataldo Neuburger L (ed) La prova scientifica nel processo penale. Cedam, Padua

    Google Scholar 

  • Maffei S (2007) Ipnosi, poligrafo, narcoanalisi, risonanza magnetica: metodi affidabili per la ricerca processuale della verità? In: De Cataldo Neuburger L (ed) La prova scientifica nel processo penale. Cedam, Padua

    Google Scholar 

  • Massa M (1964) Contributo allo studio del giudizio penale di primo grado. Giuffrè, Milan

    Google Scholar 

  • Messina G (2010) Le neuroscienze nel processo: profili problematici e orizzonti prospettici di un nuovo confronto tra scienza e diritto., Rivista italiana di diritto e procedura penale

    Google Scholar 

  • Mobbs D et al (2009) Law, responsibility, and the brain. In: Freeman M, Goodenough OR (eds) Law, mind and brain. Ashgate, Burlington

    Google Scholar 

  • Moreno J (2009) The future of neuroimaged lie detection and the law. Akron Law Rev 42(3):717–738

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 York

    Google Scholar 

  • Morse SJ (2006) Brain overclaim syndrome and criminal responsibility: a diagnostic note. Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper Series (Research Paper no. 06-35), pp 397–412

    Google Scholar 

  • Myers B et al (2004) Victim impact statements and mock juror sentencing: the impact of dehumanizing language on a death qualified sample. Am J Forensic Psychol 22:39–55

    Google Scholar 

  • Nigro M, Tonini P (2008) Libero convincimento. In: Spangher G (ed) Procedura penale. Il Sole 24 Ore, Milan

    Google Scholar 

  • Nilson KW et al (2006) Role of monoamino oxidase A genotype and psychosocial factors in male adolescent criminal activity. Biol Psychiatry 59:121–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nobili M (1974) Il principio del libero convincimento del giudice. Giuffrè, Milan

    Google Scholar 

  • Office of Technology Assessment (November 1983) Scientific validity of polygraph testing. A technical memorandum

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Pellegrini S (2009) Il ruolo dei fattori genetici nella modulazione del comportamento: le nuove acquisizioni della biologia molecolare genetica. In: Bianchi A et al (eds) Manuale di neuroscienze forensi. Giuffrè, Milan

    Google Scholar 

  • Pietrini P (2007) Responsabilmente: dai processi cerebrali al processo penale. Prospettive e limiti dell’approccio neuro scientifico. In: De Cataldo Neuburger L (ed) La prova scientifica nel processo penale. Cedam, Padua

    Google Scholar 

  • Pizarro D (2000) Nothing more than feelings? The role of emotions in moral judgments. J Theory Soc Behav 30(4):355–373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pizzetti F (2012) Neuroscienze forensi e diritti fondamentali: spunti costituzionali., Politica del diritto

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramachandran V (1998) The Zombie Within. New Scientist

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosen J (2007) The brain on the stand. The New York Times

    Google Scholar 

  • Salerno J, Bottoms B (2009) Emotional evidence and jurors’ judgments: the promise of neuroscience for informing psychology and law. Behav Sci the Law 27:273–296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sammicheli L, Sartori G (2009) Neuroscienze giuridiche: i diversi livelli di interazione tra diritto e neuroscienze. In: Bianchi A et al (eds) Manuale di neuroscienze forensi. Giuffrè, Milan

    Google Scholar 

  • Sammicheli L, Sartori G (2010) Neuroscienze e processo penale. Cassazione penale 9:3305

    Google Scholar 

  • Sammicheli L et al (2009) Libertà morale e ricerca processuale della verità: metodiche neuro scientifiche. In: Bianchi A et al (eds) Manuale di neuroscienze forensi. Giuffrè, Milan

    Google Scholar 

  • Santosuosso A, Bottalico B (2009) Neuroscienze e diritto: una prima mappa. In: Santosuosso A (ed) Le Neuroscienze e il diritto. Ibis, Pavia

    Google Scholar 

  • Sartori G, Agosta S (2009) Menzogna, cervello e lie detection. In: Bianchi A et al (eds) Manuale di neuroscienze forensi. Giuffrè, Milan

    Google Scholar 

  • Sartori G et al (2008) How to accurately detect autobiographical events. Psychol Sci, 772–780

    Google Scholar 

  • Schacter D (1996) The seven sins of memory: how the mind forgets and remembers. Houghton Mifflin, Boston. Italian edition: Schacter D (2002) I sette peccati della memoria. Mondadori, Milan

    Google Scholar 

  • Skolnick Weisberg D et al (2008) The seductive allure of neuroscience explanation. J Cogn Neurosci 20:470–477

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tancredi LR, Brodie JD (2008) The brain and behavior: limitations in the legal use of functional magnetic resonance imaging. Am J Law Med 33:271–294

    Google Scholar 

  • Tonini P (2007) Progresso scientifico, prova scientifica e contradditorio. In: De Cataldo Neuburger L (ed) La prova scientifica nel processo penale. Cedam, Padua

    Google Scholar 

  • Ubertis G (2007) La prova scientifica e la nottola di Minerva. In: De Cataldo Neuburger L (ed) La prova scientifica nel processo penale. Cedam, Padua

    Google Scholar 

  • Uttal WR (2009) Neuroscience in the courtroom. Lawyers and Judges Publishing Company, Inc., Tucson

    Google Scholar 

  • Varraso G (2014) Neuroscienze e consulenza “investigativa”. In: Scalfati A (ed) Le indagini atipiche. Giappichelli, Turin

    Google Scholar 

  • Wegner DM (2002) The illusion of conscious will. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Westbury C, Dennet D (2000) Mining the past to construct the future: memory and beliefs as forms of knowledge. In: Schachter DL (ed) Brain and belief. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeki S (2009) The objectivity of subjective truths. 6th July 2009 Lecture at the Law Faculty of University College of London

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Law Department, University of Rome “Tor Vergata”, Rome, Italy

    Laura Capraro

Authors
  1. Laura Capraro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Laura Capraro .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Rome, Rome, Italy

    Eugenio Picozza

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland and G. Giappichelli Editore

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Capraro, L. (2016). Criminal Procedure Issues. In: Picozza, E. (eds) Neurolaw. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41441-6_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41441-6_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-41440-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-41441-6

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation