LaN Session 2 Flashcards
What is the significance of the Kenneth Parks case regarding neuroscientific evidence in court?
The case demonstrated that neuroscientific evidence, such as EEG readings showing unusual brain activity, can help establish an automatism defence, influencing the jury’s decision on criminal responsibility.
How does neuroscience challenge the traditional concepts of free will in legal contexts?
Neuroscience suggests that all behaviour is determined by neurological makeup, potentially rendering legal and moral concepts like responsibility and guilt obsolete.
What is Morse’s view on the relationship between behavioural causation and criminal responsibility?
Morse argues that causation does not affect criminal responsibility as the law views individuals as rational agents who can respond to reasons, regardless of underlying neurobiological determinants.
How does Libet’s experiment challenge the concept of free will?
Libet’s findings indicated that brain activity (readiness potential) occurs before individuals are conscious of their intentions, questioning whether there is free will in initiating movements.
What are the main two challenges to free will posed by neuroscientific findings?
- Denial of free will by showing that our decisions are predetermined by past brain events.
- Assertion that our conscious will does not cause our actions but is merely an epiphenomenon of brain activity.
How have recent studies questioned the interpretations of Libet’s experiment?
New studies suggest that the readiness potential may not directly correlate with the formation of intentions, highlighting ambiguities in the original findings and questioning the determinism implied by Libet’s experiment.
What role does rational capacity play in legal defences of insanity?
In legal contexts, a defendant may be excused from responsibility not by showing lack of free will, but by demonstrating incapacity to appreciate the nature and consequences of their actions, or that their actions were wrong, indicating a lack of rational capacity.
What implications does the acceptance of neuroscientific evidence have for the notion of a ‘guilty mind’ in criminal law?
Neuroscientific evidence can challenge traditional views by illustrating that actions might be more influenced by uncontrollable neurological processes rather than by a conscious decision, complicating the assessment of mens rea.
Define ‘guilty mind’ in criminal law.
‘Mens rea’ refers to criminal intent.
How do modern criticisms of the Libet experiment impact the debate on free will?
Recent critiques suggest that the readiness potential observed in Libet’s experiment does not necessarily signify a deterministic process, as it could reflect general decision-making dynamics rather than the formation of a specific intention to act.
How might advances in neuroscience influence legal views on punishment?
As neuroscience provides more detailed explanations of brain processes underlying behaviour, it may shift legal perspectives from retributivist to consequentialist views of punishment, focusing more on future social welfare than on past culpability.
What is the ‘illusion of conscious will’ according to some neuroscientists, and how does it relate to legal responsibility?
This theory suggests that individuals mistakenly believe they consciously direct their actions, whereas these actions are actually initiated by unconscious brain processes. This perception challenges the authenticity of conscious agency, potentially impacting legal assessments of voluntary action.
What is Free Will?
The freedom to act as one wills. It entails the existence of multiple options.
What is determinism?
A line of thought that argues that all events are completely caused by prior states, thereby implying the lack of a genuine choice.
Libet’s experiment and Determinism
RP doesn’t always correlate with the absence of ‘veto powers’, therefore it doesn’t prove determinism.
Additionally, discoveries have been criticised because not applicable to real-life decision-making as too simplistic.
