Theory and History of Psychology, Faculty of Behavioral and Social Sciences, University of Groningen, Grote Kruisstraat 2/1, 9712 TS Groningen, The Netherlands.
Int J Law Psychiatry. 2012 Mar-Apr;35(2):104-11. doi: 10.1016/j.ijlp.2012.01.001. Epub 2012 Jan 29.
Will neuroscience revolutionize forensic practice and our legal institutions? In the debate about the legal implications of brain research, free will and the neural bases of antisocial or criminal behavior are of central importance. By analyzing frequently quoted examples for the unconscious determinants of behavior and antisocial personality changes caused by brain lesions in a wider psychological and social context, the paper argues for a cautious middle position: Evidence for an impending normative "neuro-revolution" is scarce and neuroscience may instead gradually improve legal practice in the long run, particularly where normative questions directly pertain to brain-related questions. In the conclusion the paper raises concerns that applying neuroscience methods about an individual's responsibility or dangerousness is premature at the present time and carries serious individual and societal risks. Putting findings from brain research in wider contexts renders them empirically investigable in a way that does not neglect psychological and social aspects of human mind and behavior.
神经科学会彻底改变法医学实践和我们的法律制度吗？在关于脑研究的法律影响的辩论中，自由意志和反社会或犯罪行为的神经基础是至关重要的。通过在更广泛的心理和社会背景下分析经常被引用的行为无意识决定因素和脑损伤引起的反社会人格变化的例子，本文主张采取谨慎的中间立场：即将到来的规范性“神经革命”的证据是稀缺的，神经科学从长远来看可能反而会逐渐改善法律实践，特别是在规范性问题直接涉及与大脑相关的问题的情况下。在结论中，本文提出了一些担忧，即在目前将神经科学方法应用于个人的责任或危险性还为时过早，并且会带来严重的个人和社会风险。将脑研究的发现置于更广泛的背景下，可以以一种不忽视人类思想和行为的心理和社会方面的方式对其进行经验研究。
