Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

On the Stand. Another Episode of Neuroscience and Law Discussion From Italy

  • Brief Communication
  • Published:
Neuroethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

After three proceedings in which neuroscience was a relevant factor for the final verdict in Italian courts, for the first time a recent case puts in question the legal relevance of neuroscientific evidence. This decision deserves international attention in its underlining that the uncertainty still affecting neuroscientific knowledge can have a significant impact on the law. It urges the consideration of such uncertainty and the development of a shared management of it.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

References

  1. Burns, J.M., and R.H. Swerdlow. 2003. Right orbitofrontal tumor with pedophilia symptom and constructional apraxia sign. Archives of Neurology 60(3): 437–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Jawad, S., C. Sidebothams, R. Sequira, and N. Jamil. 2009. Altered sexual orientation following dominant hemisphere infarct. The Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences 21(3): 353–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Farisco, M., and C. Petrini. 2012. The impact of neuroscience and genetics on the law: A recent Italian case. Neuroethics 5(3): 317–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Appelbaum, P.S. 2005. Behavioral genetics and the punishment of crime. Law & Psychiatry 56: 25–27.

    Google Scholar 

  5. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Mobbs, D., H.C. Lau, O.D. Jones, and C.D. Frith. 2007. Law, responsibility, and the brain. PLoS Biology 5(4): e103. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0050103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Vincent, N.O. 2010. On the relevance of neuroscience to criminal responsibility. Criminal Law and Philosophy 4: 77–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Freeman, M. (ed.). 2011. Law and neuroscience: Current legal issues Volume 13. Oxford: Oxford Scholarship. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199599844.001.0001.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Spranger, T.M. (ed.). 2012. International Neurolaw. A comparative analysis. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Biogem Genetic Research Centre, Via Camporeale—Area PIP, 83031, Ariano Irpino, AV, Italy

    Michele Farisco

  2. Italian National Institute of Health, Via Giano della Bella 34, 00162, Rome, Italy

    Carlo Petrini

Authors
  1. Michele Farisco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Carlo Petrini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michele Farisco.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Farisco, M., Petrini, C. On the Stand. Another Episode of Neuroscience and Law Discussion From Italy. Neuroethics 7, 243–245 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-013-9187-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-013-9187-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation