Format

Send to

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Behav Sci Law. 2009 Mar-Apr;27(2):123-36. doi: 10.1002/bsl.853.

Neuroscience and the law: philosophical differences and practical constraints.

Author information

  • 1Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, Semel Neuropsychiatric Institute, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, CA, USA. damartell@aol.com

Abstract

Controversies surrounding the value of neuroscience as forensic evidence are explored from the perspective of the philosophy of mind, as well as from a practical analysis of the state of the scientific research literature. At a fundamental philosophical level there are profound differences in how law and neuroscience view the issue of criminal responsibility along the continuum from free will to determinism. At a more practical level, significant limitations in the current state of neuroimaging research constrain its ability to inform legal decision-making. Scientifically supported and unsupported forensic applications for brain imaging are discussed, and recommendations for forensic report writing are offered.

PMID:
19267425
DOI:
10.1002/bsl.853
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Wiley
    Loading ...
    Support Center