Schleim Stephan
Theory and History of Psychology, Heymans Institute for Psychological Research, Faculty of Behavioral and Social Sciences, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.
Front Psychol. 2020 Jul 29;11:1762. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01762. eCollection 2020.
Previous publications discussed the conditions under which courts admitted or could admit neurotechnological evidence like brain scans. There were also first attempts to investigate legal decisions neuroscientifically. The present paper analyzes a different way in which neuroscience already influenced the law: The legal justification of the new Dutch adolescent criminal law explicitly mentions findings on brain development to justify a higher maximum age for the application of juvenile criminal law than before. The lawmaker's reasoning is compared with the neuroscientific studies on which it is based. In particular, three neurodevelopmental publications quoted by the Dutch Council for the Administration of Criminal Justice and Protection of Juveniles to justify that adolescents can be legally less responsible are analyzed in detail. The paper also addresses possibilities under which brain research could improve legal decision-making in the future. One important aspect turns out to be that neuroscience should not only matter on the level of justification, but also provide better instruments on the individual level of application.
以往的出版物讨论了法院承认或可能承认像脑部扫描这样的神经技术证据的条件。也有人首次尝试从神经科学角度调查法律判决。本文分析了神经科学已经影响法律的另一种方式：荷兰新的青少年刑法的法律依据明确提及了关于大脑发育的研究结果，以此为由将青少年刑法适用的最高年龄设定得比以前更高。将立法者的推理与其所基于的神经科学研究进行了比较。特别是，详细分析了荷兰刑事司法与青少年保护委员会引用的三篇神经发育方面的出版物，以证明青少年在法律上可以承担较轻责任的观点。本文还探讨了未来大脑研究可以改善法律决策的可能性。一个重要方面是，神经科学不仅在依据层面上重要，而且在个体应用层面上也应提供更好的工具。
