Brains in context in the neurolaw debate: The examples of free will and "dangerous" brains

Theory and History of Psychology, Faculty of Behavioral and Social Sciences, University of Groningen, Grote Kruisstraat 2/1, 9712 TS Groningen, The Netherlands.
International Journal of Law and Psychiatry (Impact Factor: 1.19). 03/2012; 35(2):104-111. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijlp.2012.01.001

ABSTRACT Will neuroscience revolutionize forensic practice and our legal institutions? In the debate about the legal implications of brain research, free will and the neural bases of antisocial or criminal behavior are of central importance. By analyzing frequently quoted examples for the unconscious determinants of behavior and antisocial personality changes caused by brain lesions in a wider psychological and social context, the paper argues for a cautious middle position: Evidence for an impending normative "neuro-revolution" is scarce and neuroscience may instead gradually improve legal practice in the long run, particularly where normative questions directly pertain to brain-related questions. In the conclusion the paper raises concerns that applying neuroscience methods about an individual's responsibility or dangerousness is premature at the present time and carries serious individual and societal risks. Putting findings from brain research in wider contexts renders them empirically investigable in a way that does not neglect psychological and social aspects of human mind and behavior.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The rapid developments in neuroscientific techniques raise high expectations among the general public and therefore warrant close monitoring of the translation to the media and daily-life applications. The need of empirical research into neuroscience communication is emphasized by its susceptibility to evoke misconceptions and polarized beliefs. As the mass media are the main sources of information about (neuro-)science for a majority of the general public, the objective of the current research is to quantify how critically and accurately newspapers report on neuroscience as a function of the timing of publication (within or outside of periods of heightened media attention to neuroscience, termed “news waves”), the topic of the research (e.g. development, health, law) and the newspaper type (quality, popular, free newspapers). The results show that articles published during neuroscience news waves were less neutral and more optimistic, but not different in accuracy. Furthermore, the overall tone and accuracy of articles depended on the topic; for example, articles on development often had an optimistic tone whereas articles on law were often skeptical or balanced, and articles on health care had highest accuracy. Average accuracy was rather low, but articles in quality newspapers were relatively more accurate than in popular and free newspapers. Our results provide specific recommendations for researchers and science communicators, to improve the translation of neuroscience findings through the media: 1) Caution is warranted during periods of heightened attention (news waves), as reporting tends to be more optimistic; 2) Caution is also warranted not to follow topic-related biases in optimism (e.g., development) or skepticism (e.g., law); 3) Researchers should keep in mind that overall accuracy of reporting is low, and especially articles in popular and free newspapers provide a minimal amount of details. This indicates that researchers themselves may need to be more active in preventing misconceptions to arise.
    PLoS ONE 08/2014; 9(8):e104780. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0104780 · 3.53 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: With the increased knowledge of biological risk factors, interest in including this information in forensic assessments is growing. Currently, forensic assessments are predominantly focused on psychosocial factors. A better understanding of the neurobiology of violent criminal behaviour and biological risk factors could improve forensic assessments.
    PLoS ONE 10/2014; 9(10):e110672. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0110672 · 3.53 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The use of neuroscience in criminal law applications is an increasingly discussed topic among legal and psychological scholars. Over the past 5 years, several prominent federal criminal cases have referenced neuroscience studies and made admissibility determinations regarding neuroscience evidence. Despite this growth, the field is exceptionally young, and no one knows for sure how significant of a contribution neuroscience will make to criminal law. This article focuses on three major subfields: (1) neuroscience-based credibility assessment, which seeks to detect lies or knowledge associated with a crime; (2) application of neuroscience to aid in assessments of brain capacity for culpability, especially among adolescents; and (3) neuroscience-based prediction of future recidivism. The article briefly reviews these fields as applied to criminal law and makes recommendations for future research, calling for the increased use of individual-level data and increased realism in laboratory studies.
    Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports 02/2015; 15(2):513. DOI:10.1007/s11910-014-0513-1 · 3.67 Impact Factor


Available from
Jun 28, 2014
Available from