Criminal Law and Philosophy 4 (1):77-98 (2010)
AbstractVarious authors debate the question of whether neuroscience is relevant to criminal responsibility. However, a plethora of different techniques and technologies, each with their own abilities and drawbacks, lurks beneath the label “neuroscience”; and in criminal law responsibility is not a single, unitary and generic concept, but it is rather a syndrome of at least six different concepts. Consequently, there are at least six different responsibility questions that the criminal law asks—at least one for each responsibility concept—and, I will suggest, a multitude of ways in which the techniques and technologies that comprise neuroscience might help us to address those diverse questions. In a way, on my account neuroscience is relevant to criminal responsibility in many ways, but I hesitate to state my position like this because doing so obscures two points which I would rather highlight: one, neither neuroscience nor criminal responsibility are as unified as that; and two, the criminal law asks many different responsibility questions and not just one generic question.
Similar books and articles
Truth and/or consequences : neuroscience and criminal responsibility.Leonard V. Kaplan - 2004 - In Susan Pockett (ed.), Does Consciousness Cause Behaviour? MIT Press.
Guilty Mind or Guilty Brain? Criminal Responsibility in the Age of Neuroscience.David Hodgson - unknown
Philosophical Foundations of Criminal Law.Antony Duff & Stuart P. Green (eds.) - 2011 - Oxford University Press.
Controversies in Criminal Law: Philosophical Essays on Responsibility and Procedure.Michael Gorr & Sterling Voss Harwood (eds.) - 1992 - Westview Press.
Space, time and function: intersecting principles of responsibility across the terrain of criminal justice. [REVIEW]Nicola Lacey - 2007 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 1 (3):233-250.
Changing the Criminal Character: Nanotechnology and Criminal Punishment.Katrina Sifferd - 2012 - In A. Santosuosso (ed.), Proceedings of the 2011 Law and Science Young Scholars Symposium. Pavia University Press.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
Criminal Responsibility and Neuroscience: No Revolution Yet.Ariane Bigenwald & Valerian Chambon - 2019 - Frontiers in Psychology 10.
Restoring Responsibility: Promoting Justice, Therapy and Reform Through Direct Brain Interventions.Nicole A. Vincent - 2014 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 8 (1):21-42.
‘Woe Betides Anybody Who Tries to Turn me Down.’ A Qualitative Analysis of Neuropsychiatric Symptoms Following Subthalamic Deep Brain Stimulation for Parkinson’s Disease.Philip E. Mosley, Katherine Robinson, Terry Coyne, Peter Silburn, Michael Breakspear & Adrian Carter - 2019 - Neuroethics 14 (1):47-63.
Three Rationales for a Legal Right to Mental Integrity.Thomas Douglas & Lisa Forsberg - 2021 - In S. Ligthart, D. van Toor, T. Kooijmans, T. Douglas & G. Meynen (eds.), Neurolaw: Advances in Neuroscience, Justice and Security. Palgrave Macmillan.
On the Stand. Another Episode of Neuroscience and Law Discussion From Italy.Michele Farisco & Carlo Petrini - 2013 - Neuroethics 7 (2):243-245.
References found in this work
Responsibility and Control: A Theory of Moral Responsibility.John Martin Fischer & Mark Ravizza - 1998 - Cambridge University Press.
Moral Dimensions: Permissibility, Meaning, Blame.Thomas Scanlon - 2008 - Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Responsibility and Control: A Theory of Moral Responsibility.John Martin Fischer & Mark Ravizza - 1999 - Philosophical Quarterly 49 (197):543-545.