The Place for Neuroscience in Criminal Law

Denno, Deborah W.

doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198743095.003.0005

Cited by 12 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This can lead to several important practical problems. As Deborah Denno points out, the main sin of legal doctrine regarding conscious behaviour is the attachment to binary classifications: voluntary versus involuntary and conscious versus unconscious (Denno, 2016). These dichotomies, unsupported in the light of current research, may cause significant inconsistencies in judicial classifications (Denno, 2003).…”

Section: The Concept Of Consciousness In Criminal Lawmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The concepts of mens rea and insanity are specific, autonomous legal constructions, filled with obsolete notions taken from nineteenth century psychology, but with no direct reference to contemporary research in psychology, psychiatry, or neuroscience (Denno, 2016). This can lead to several important practical problems.…”

Section: The Concept Of Consciousness In Criminal Lawmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Such a rule is present in the Polish Penal Code regulation concerning insanity: if the perpetrator's capability to either recognize the significance of an act or to control an act is deemed diminished to a significant extent, the court may apply extraordinary mitigation of the punishment (Polish Penal Code, Article 31 §2). The second point made by Denno, answering the question of how neuroscience could help criminal law, is to create a scientific theory of mental states (Denno, 2016). Still, while updating the scientific (i.e.…”

Section: The Concept Of Consciousness In Criminal Lawmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Naturalizing the subjective side of the crime

Janik¹,

Próchnicki²

2018

Balkan Journal of Philosophy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Advancements in neuroscience cast new light on the functioning of the human mind. This is especially important within the context of criminal law, wherein consciousness plays a crucial role in determining criminal responsibility. Yet, there are some caveats in the direct application of these new findings, most of which are related to the specific conceptual framework of law based upon commonsense knowledge and (sometimes) outdated psychology. This framework has also produced different doctrines of interpretation in the systems of common and civil law. Moreover, the goals of the law are to some extent different from scientific research on the brain. The aim of this study is to assess to what extent and under what interpretation scientific knowledge concerning consciousness might be useful for legal purposes, especially for the criminal law. Our assessment is that most of the current concepts of criminal law are directly related to outdated psychological and neuroscientific theories, and that the content of those concepts should be updated according to the newest scientific findings while remaining in accordance with the primary functions of criminal law.

show abstract

Section: The Concept Of Consciousness In Criminal Lawmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Concept Of Consciousness In Criminal Lawmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Concept Of Consciousness In Criminal Lawmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Naturalizing the subjective side of the crime

Janik¹,

Próchnicki²

2018

Balkan Journal of Philosophy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…And sometimes the evidence in fact shows exactly that: some people are documentably dangerous in ways that we do not know how to treat. (For a more extensive discussion of likelihood of neuroscience data serving as a doubled‐edged sword, please see …”

Section: Lay Interpretations Of Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(For a more extensive discussion of likelihood of neuroscience data serving as a doubled-edged sword, please see. 27,28,[44][45][46][47][48][49]…”

Section: Lay Interpretations Of Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

What difference do brain images make in US criminal trials?

Hardcastle

2018

Evaluation Clinical Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One of the early concerns regarding the use of neuroscience data in criminal trials is that even if the brain images are ambiguous or inconclusive, they still might influence a jury in virtue of the fact that they appear easy to understand. By appearing visually simple, even though they are really statistically constructed maps with a host of assumptions built into them, a lay jury or a judge might take brain scans to be more reliable or relevant than they actually are. Should courts exclude brain scans for being more prejudicial than probative? Herein, we rehearse a brief history of brain scans admitted into criminal trials in the United States, then describe the results of a recent analysis of appellate court decisions that referenced 1 or more brain scans in the judicial decision. In particular, we aim to explain how courts use neuroscience imaging data: Do they interpret the data correctly? Does it seem that scans play an oversized role in judicial decision-making? And have they changed how criminal defendants are judged? It is our hope that in answering these questions, clinicians and defence attorneys will be able to make better informed decisions regarding about how to manage those incarcerated.

show abstract

Life or death: A qualitative examination of mitigating and aggravating evidence presented in capital trials

Holleran

2023

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The US Supreme Court has required that death penalty procedures narrow the class of persons eligible for a death sentence. Through the selection requirement, juries must use mitigating and aggravating evidence jointly to determine if a defendant is one of the worst of the worst, resulting in a sentence of life without parole or death. This study analyzed capital trial transcripts from the punishment phase to assess the type and amount of mitigating and aggravating evidence presented to jurors in cases resulting in life without parole and death. The main assumption of the research was that cases resulting in life without the possibility of parole (LWOP) would reveal patterns in the types of evidence presented and differing patterns in cases where the jury handed down a sentence of death. The study qualitatively examined the trial transcripts from the punishment phase of 18 capital murders (nine resulting in LWOP and nine in death). The extra‐legal factors from each LWOP case were matched to a death case to eliminate sentencing discrepancies based on jurisdiction, race of defendant or victim, aggravator, age etc. The results found no consistent patterns of evidence presented in cases resulting life without parole and some relevant patterns in sentences resulting in death.

show abstract

The Place for Neuroscience in Criminal Law

Cited by 12 publications

References 0 publications

Naturalizing the subjective side of the crime

Naturalizing the subjective side of the crime

What difference do brain images make in US criminal trials?

Life or death: A qualitative examination of mitigating and aggravating evidence presented in capital trials

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About