Psychology, Crime and Law (00):00-00 (2018)

Jacqueline Anne Sullivan
University of Western Ontario
Emily Baron
University of Toronto, St. George Campus
The use of neuroscientific evidence in criminal trials has been steadily increasing. Despite progress made in recent decades in understanding the mechanisms of psychological and behavioral functioning, neuroscience is still in an early stage of development and its potential for influencing legal decision-making is highly contentious. Scholars disagree about whether or how neuroscientific evidence might impact prescriptions of criminal culpability, particularly in instances in which evidence of an accused’s history of mental illness or brain abnormality is offered to support a plea of not criminally responsible. In the context of these debates, philosophers and legal scholars have identified numerous problems with admitting neuroscientific evidence in legal contexts. To date, however, less has been said about the challenges of evaluating the evidence upon which integrative mechanistic explanations that bring together evidence from different areas of neuroscience are based. As we explain, current criteria for evaluating such evidence to determine its admissibility in legal contexts are inadequate. Appealing to literature in the philosophy of scientific experimentation and theoretical work in the social, cognitive and behavioral sciences, we lay the groundwork for reforming these criteria and identify some of the implications of modifying them.
Keywords mental illness  reliability  validity  experiment  evidence  criminal behavior  neuroscience
Categories (categorize this paper)
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

View all 26 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

No Nonsense Neuro-Law.Sarah K. Robins & Carl F. Craver - 2011 - Neuroethics 4 (3):195-203.
Minds, Brains, and Norms.Dennis Patterson - 2011 - Neuroethics 4 (3):179-190.
Vagueness and Mechanistic Explanation in Neuroscience.Philipp Haueis - 2013 - Croatian Journal of Philosophy 13 (2):251-275.


Added to PP index

Total views
394 ( #21,712 of 2,448,174 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
39 ( #17,387 of 2,448,174 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes