Task 1 Flashcards
Neuroscience is not a unitary and generic discipline, but covers a number of different techniques and technologies. It may therefore be better to talk about neurosciences (plural). In what way might these different techniques and technologies aid the law in answering some of its perennial questions? 7 answers
Buttressing: increasing trust in other (behavioral) evidence.
Detecting: identifying legally relevant facts (brain injury, lie detection).
Sorting: categorizing certain groups of people (juveniles, those most likely to respond to drug rehabilitation).
Intervening: to achieve rehabilitation (drug treatment).
Explaining: developing a broader and deeper understanding of the neural mechanisms of legal decisions might ultimately aid efforts to improve the fairness and effectiveness of the criminal justice system.
Predicting: risk taxation of possible future behaviors.
Challenging: questioning or contradicting evidence, maybe even some legal concepts or criminal policies.
The legal notion of ‘responsibility’ is not a single concept, but at least in criminal law may cover 6 different meanings. Please make an inventory of these meanings and illustrate the possible relevance of the neurosciences for each of these responsibility-concepts. The 6 responsibilities.
1 Capacity responsibility: to establish guilt we look at two elements; actus reus (causal responsibility) and mens rea (role responsibility). Moral agency
2 Causal responsibility: actus reus
3 Role responsibility: responsibilities that refer to tasks and duties of their particular role or job description. Mens rea
4 Outcome responsibility: guilt determination stage.
5 Vitrue responsibility: norms and values of the agent, how does he normally behave in daily life? Character + history
6 Liability responsibility: punishment should be based on outcome responsibility and virtue responsibility. Sentencing stage
The legal notion of ‘responsibility’ is not a single concept, but at least in criminal law may cover 6 different meanings. Please make an inventory of these meanings and illustrate the possible relevance of the neurosciences for each of these responsibility-concepts. Relevance of neuroscience
1 capacity responsibility: neuroscience might try to discover the neural correlates of capacity responsibility, might develop techniques to measure the extent to which a particular person possess the capacities to be a moral agent (theory-building stage).
Neuroscientific techniques may be used to asses the capacities of individuals (theory-application stage). Intervention techniques may enhance people’s capacities.
2 causal responsibility: fMRI based lie detection, truth drugs, brain fingerprinting, use neuroscientific evidence for automatism defence
3 role responsibility: lie detection techniques, techniques to assess individuals mental capacities.
4 outcome responsibility: via the help of answering the questions of causal + role responsibility.
5 virtue responsibility: not sure what neuroscience can do for virtue responsibility.
6 liability responsibility: neuroscience can help us to find out wether a person is a valid candidate for retribution, neuroscience can come up with treatments that can be part of the punishment process.
Which of the 6 different meanings of responsibility seems to be most relevant in de tumor-caused pedophilia cases discussed above? In other words, which specific meaning of responsibility seems to be challenged in this case?
Capacity responsibility: the person’s actions were causally responsible for the outcome. He did not act as he oughts to do. He acted intentionally. But diminished capacity because of the tumor. So an excuse.
A defendant is criminally responsible only if he is shown to have engaged in a guilty (voluntary) act or actus reus while possessing a guilty mind or mens rea and lacking a defence (self defence, insanity defence). This is especially how anglo-american systems (or common law systems) analyse the conditions of criminal responsibility. Can you explain the difference between actus reus and mens rea?
Actus reus: voluntary conduct. Justifications; automatism defence, self defence
Mens rea: mental state. Intent, knowledge, recklessness, negligence. Excuses; self-defense, duress, insanity defense
A defendant is criminally responsible only if he is shown to have engaged in a guilty (voluntary) act or actus reus while possessing a guilty mind or mens rea and lacking a defence (self defence, insanity defence). This is especially how anglo-american systems (or common law systems) analyse the conditions of criminal responsibility. How would you relate the possible relevance of neuroscientific techniques and insights to the actus reus (in particular the condition of voluntary conduct) and mens rea of a crime?
Denial of actus reus Kenneth Parks case.
Denial of intent (mens rea) Sietske H case.
How would you relate the possible relevance of neuroscientific insights to the so-called insanity defense?
Insanity defense = at the time of committing the act the defendant was acting under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or if he did know it, that he did not know that what he was doing was wrong. Neuroscience can be relevant to investigate whether the defendant had cognitive/rational impairments (or sometimes also volitional impairments).
Criminal responsibility is primarily about the past, as it formulates a legal response to a person’s crime that is already committed. But what other role could neuroscience play in the justice system? What do you consider most valuable, intriguing or even problematic, and why?
Prevention of crime, treatment, deterrence, see if someone had to required capacities at the time of committing the crime, retribution
Why are some scholars cautious with regard to the possible role of neuroscience for the law? What seem to be some limitations and (conceptual and empirical) obstacles?
Ethical issues: with medication instead of therapy infringing someone’s autonomy.
Technical issues: accuracy, false positives and negatives.
Challenges in communicating between the law and neuroscience.
Limitations within the current state of neuroscientific knowledge.
Conceptual problems: what is voluntary conduct? What is intent?