Urbaniok Frank, Laubacher Arja, Hardegger Judith, Rossegger Astrid, Endrass Jérôme, Moskvitin Konstantin
Psychiatric/Psychological Service, Department of Justice, Zurich, Switzerland.
Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol. 2012 Apr;56(2):174-90. doi: 10.1177/0306624X10395474. Epub 2011 Feb 28.
Several authors have argued that criminal behavior is generally caused by neurobiological deficits. This assumption not only questions the concept of free will and a person's responsibility for his or her own actions but also the principle of guilt in criminal law. When critically examining the current state of research, it becomes apparent that the results are not sufficient to support the existence of a universally valid neurobiological causality of criminal behavior. Moreover, the assumption of total neurobiological determination of human behavior and the impossibility of individual responsibility are characterized by both faulty empiricism and methodical misconceptions. The principle of relative determinism and the analysis of the offender's behavior at the time of the offense thus remain the central and cogent approach to the assessment of criminal responsibility.
几位作者认为，犯罪行为通常是由神经生物学缺陷引起的。这一假设不仅质疑了自由意志的概念以及一个人对自己行为的责任，还质疑了刑法中的罪责原则。在批判性地审视当前的研究状况时，很明显，这些结果不足以支持存在一种普遍有效的犯罪行为神经生物学因果关系。此外，人类行为完全由神经生物学决定以及个人责任不可能存在的假设存在错误的经验主义和方法上的误解。因此，相对决定论原则以及对犯罪时罪犯行为的分析仍然是评估刑事责任的核心且有说服力的方法。
