Minds, Brains, and the Law

Software, Prediction, and Future Violence

ABC News recently posted a piece entitled "Software Predicts Criminal Behavior" which examines the software that has been developed by Richard Berk and colleagues for the purposes of violence risk assessment.  Legal decision makers in Washington D.C. are going to be using the software to make determinations concerning sentencing and bail. 

The Neurobiology of Evil

Big Think has posted a recent interview with Michael Stone entitled "The Neurobiology of Evil."  If you haven't checked out Big Think before, you should also watch some of their other fascinating interviews with folks like Kwame Appiah, Antonio Damasio, Joseph LeDoux, Alfred Mele, and others.

Youth, the Brain, Neuroimaging, and Responsibility

New Scientist has a recent piece entitled "Brain Scans May Fix Criminal Responsibility" which explores the research being done by Nico Dosenbach and others with pattern classification and neural imaging and its potential legal applications--especially when it comes to making determinations concerning brain maturity and moral/legal responsibility (or lack thereof).

The Brain Speaks?

Science Daily has an interesting recent piece about the advances being made when it comes to brain-computer interface that allow researchers to decode words from brain signals.  While the researchers have made impressive progress, they admit they have still have a lot of work to do before the technology is ready for practical applications.

The Human Rights Implications of Using Brain Scans as Criminal Evidence

Brian Farrell has a recent piece entitled "Can't Get You Out of My Head: The Human Rights Implications of Using Brain Scans as Criminal Evidence."  Here is the abstract:

The June 12, 2008, conviction of a woman for the murder of her former fiancé in India marked the dawn of a new era for the use of scientific technology in law enforcement. For the first time, a brain scan was admitted by a court against a criminal defendant as evidence that she had experiential knowledge of the alleged crime. While the use of such technology is currently very limited, strong interest exists in its development for use in the realms of both law enforcement and national security. This article analyzes the use of brain scans purporting to show the presence or absence of memory of an event as evidence against criminal defendants under the civil liberties guarantees of international and regional human rights instruments. It begins with an overview of brain scan technology and its potential application in criminal prosecutions. The article then considers the scientific and civil liberties arguments against the use of such evidence in this context. Finally, it draws conclusions as to the legality of the use of brain scan evidence under prevailing human rights norms.

A Critical Realist Theology of Law, Neurobiology, and the Soul

David Opderbeck has a recent piece entitled "A Critical Realist Theology of Law, Neurobiology, and the Soul."  Here is the abstract:

"This Chapter summarizes the challenges neurobiology presents to Christian theories of positive law. It begins by summarizing the Christian tradition's tight linkage between theological anthropology and theories of positive law. It next discusses the contemporary Christian theological engagement with neurobiology, which is surprisingly diverse. The discussion then turns to points of convergence and divergence between Christian and neurobiological accounts of law and personhood. It concludes with an outline of a methodological proposal for constructive engagement between Christian theories of law and the neurosicences."

Is It Immoral to Punish the Heedless or Clueless?

Susan Bandes has a recent piece entitled "Is It Immoral to Punish the Heedless or Clueless?"  

Here is the abstract:

Criminal prosecutions for negligent conduct have long been controversial. As a policy matter, there are strong arguments both for and against criminalizing negligence. One obvious drawback of doctrines that insulate negligent conduct from criminal liability is that they reward heedless and clueless behavior. The actor who somehow fails to pay attention to well-know risks (driving while drunk or texting, leaving an infant in the bath unattended) is off the hook, while the actor who has the risks in mind and engages in the risky behavior anyway may be liable. But for some theorists, these policy considerations should never be reached because it is immoral to punish negligent behavior. These theorists argue that negligent actors are simply incapable of acting differently. If a parent forgets that his infant is in the bath and that infants can drown when unsupervised, his behavior is beyond his own control, and beyond the influence of the legal system. This paper critiques the assumption that the negligent actor is impervious to influence or correction, arguing that it is increasingly at odds with evolving knowledge in the fields of cognitive psychology and cognitive neuroscience. The boundary between conscious and unconscious behavior is permeable and dynamic. Unconscious behavior can be shaped and trained, and legal institutions are in a unique position to shape norms that guide unconscious or subconscious behavior.

Talkin ' Brains

The DANA Foundation has a recent piece by Moheb Costandi entitled "Talkin' Brains" that addresses the need for neuroscientists to explain their ideas and research to laypersons more effectively.

TILTing Perspectives on the Stand

TILTing Perspectives is a series of bi-annual international conferences, organized by the Tilburg Institute for Law, Technology and Society (TILT) at Tilburg University in the Netherlands. TILT is a multidisciplinary institute conducting research into the legal and social implications of various emerging (fields of) technologies, ranging from information and communication technologies, to bio- and nanotechnologies, to neurotechnologies and robotics.

TILT is happy to announce the next conference of this series, entitled

TILTing Perspectives 2011: 
Technologies on the stand: Legal and ethical questions in neuroscience and robotics

This conference focuses on the legal and ethical questions raised by the application of neuroscience and robotics in a number of contexts. Think, for instance, of the following examples:

• the use of  neurotechnologies in the legal arena, in therapy, and for human enhancement;
• the advent of robot technologies in home and hospital environments, but also in war.

For more details on the theme and subject area of this conference, please see the call for papers

In this two-day conference we aim to bring together national and international experts from the fields of law, robotics and neuroscience, and to facilitate discussion between lawyers, legal scholars, psychologists, social scientists, philosophers, neuroscientists and policy makers. 

Key details:

• Conference dates: 11 and 12 April 2011
  
• Conference location: Tilburg University, Tilburg, the Netherlands
  
• Registration: opens on 1 October 2010; closes on 5 April 2011
  
• Submission of abstracts: opens on 1 September 2010; closes on 15 October 2010
  
• Submission of full papers: opens on 1 October 2010; closes on 15 December 2010
  
• Reviewer feedback on full papers: sent to authors on 31 January 2011(at the latest) 
  
• Final revised papers due: 1 March 2011