Law School and Department of Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States.
Handb Clin Neurol. 2023;197:235-250. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-821375-9.00003-7.
This chapter canvasses the current relevance of behavioral neuroscience to the law, especially to issues of criminal responsibility and competence. It begins with an explanation of the legal doctrines at stake. I then explore the source of the often-inflated claims for the legal relevance of neuroscience. The next section discusses the scientific status of behavioral neuroscience. Then, it addresses two radical challenges to current conceptions of criminal responsibility that neuroscience allegedly poses: determinism and the death of agency. The question of the specific relevance of neuroscience to criminal law doctrine, practice, and institutions is considered next. This is followed by a discussion of how neuroscience evidence is being used in criminal cases in five different countries, including the United States. The penultimate section points to some areas warranting modest optimism. A brief conclusion suggests that neuroscience is at present of limited legal relevance, and advances in the science might alter that judgment.
本章探讨了行为神经科学与法律的当前相关性，特别是刑事责任和能力问题。它首先解释了所涉及的法律原则。然后，我探讨了神经科学对法律相关性的夸大主张的来源。下一节讨论了行为神经科学的科学地位。接着，它讨论了神经科学据称对刑事责任的两个根本挑战：决定论和代理权的丧失。接下来，考虑了神经科学对刑法学说、实践和制度的具体相关性。接下来，讨论了神经科学证据如何在包括美国在内的五个不同国家的刑事案件中使用。倒数第二节指出了一些值得乐观的领域。简短的结论表明，神经科学目前在法律上的相关性有限，科学的进步可能会改变这一判断。
