Urbaniok F, Hardegger J, Rossegger A, Endrass J
Psychiatrisch-Psychologischer Dienst, Zürich, Schweiz.
Fortschr Neurol Psychiatr. 2006 Aug;74(8):431-41. doi: 10.1055/s-2006-944237.
Several authors argue that criminal behavior is generally caused by neurobiological deficits. Based on this neurobiological perspective of assumed causality, the concept of free will is questioned, and the theory of neurobiological determinism of all human behavior is put forward, thus maintaining that human beings are not responsible for their actions, and consequently the principle of guilt should be given up in criminal law. In this context the controversial debate on determinism and indeterminism, which has been held for centuries, has flared up anew, especially within the science of criminal law. When critically examining the current state of research, it becomes apparent that the results do not support the existence of a universally valid neurobiological causality of criminal behavior, nor a theory of an absolute neurobiological determinism. Neither is complete determination of all phenomena in the universe--as maintained--the logical conclusion of the principle of causality, nor is it empirically confirmed. Analyzed methodically, it cannot be falsified, and thus, as a theory which cannot be empirically tested, it represents a dogma against which plausible objections can be made. The criticism of the concept of free will, and even more so of human accountability and criminal responsibility, is not put forward in a valid way. The principle of relative determinism--the evaluation of the degree of determinism of personality factors potentially reducing criminal responsibility, which includes concrete observations and analysis of behavior--thus remains a central and cogent approach to the assessment of criminal responsibility. To sum up, the theories proposed by some authors on the complete neurobiological determinism of human behavior, and the subsequent impossibility of individual responsibility and guilt, reveal both methodical misconception and a lack of empirical foundation.
几位作者认为，犯罪行为通常是由神经生物学缺陷引起的。基于这种假定因果关系的神经生物学观点，自由意志的概念受到质疑，并且提出了关于所有人类行为的神经生物学决定论，从而认为人类无需对自己的行为负责，因此刑法中的罪责原则应该被摒弃。在这种背景下，关于决定论和非决定论的争论已经持续了几个世纪，如今又再次爆发，尤其是在刑法学领域。在批判性地审视当前的研究现状时，很明显，研究结果既不支持存在一种普遍有效的犯罪行为神经生物学因果关系，也不支持绝对的神经生物学决定论。宇宙中所有现象的完全决定论——正如所主张的那样——既不是因果律原则的逻辑结论，也没有得到经验证实。从方法上分析，它无法被证伪，因此，作为一种无法通过经验检验的理论，它代表了一种教条，对此可以提出合理的反对意见。对自由意志概念的批评，更不用说对人类责任和刑事责任的批评，并不是以有效的方式提出的。相对决定论原则——对可能减轻刑事责任的人格因素的决定论程度进行评估，其中包括对行为的具体观察和分析——因此仍然是评估刑事责任的核心且有说服力的方法。总之，一些作者提出的关于人类行为完全由神经生物学决定的理论，以及随之而来的个人责任和罪责的不可能性，既揭示了方法上的误解，也缺乏实证基础。
