Harman Oren
Graduate Program in Science Technology and Society, Bar Ilan University, Israel.
Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci. 2013 Sep;44(3):455-9. doi: 10.1016/j.shpsc.2013.04.005. Epub 2013 May 6.
Recently, the question of adolescent culpability has been brought before the Supreme Court of the United States for reconsideration. Neuroscience, adolescent advocates claim, is teaching us that young people cannot be found fully responsible for their actions. The reason: their brains are not fully formed. Here I consider the history of the use of scientific evidence in the courtroom, a number of adolescent murder cases, and the data now emerging from neuroscience, and argue that when it comes to brains, judges, just like the rest of us, are unnecessarily impressed. Ultimately, how we determine culpability should rest on normative and ethical considerations rather than on scientific ones.
最近，青少年罪责的问题已提交至美国最高法院进行重新审议。青少年权益倡导者称，神经科学告诉我们，不能认定年轻人对自己的行为负全部责任。原因是：他们的大脑尚未发育完全。在此，我审视了科学证据在法庭上的使用历史、一些青少年谋杀案件以及神经科学目前得出的数据，并认为在大脑问题上，法官和我们其他人一样，都受到了不必要的影响。归根结底，我们如何确定罪责应基于规范和伦理考量，而非科学考量。
