This collection presents a comparative perspective on interdisciplinary issues that fall under the emerging field of Neurolaw. The chapters embrace distinct procedural and evidential issues in the courtroom for vulnerable defendants, such as immature defendants, mentally disordered offenders and unfit-to-plead defendants, through a neuroscientific lens. This view is informed by worldwide analyses from legal academics, philosophers, and legal practitioners. The work brings together interdisciplinary and leading perspectives to discuss the use and relevancy of neuroscience at trial, and how the use of neuroscience is currently benefiting and impacting vulnerable defendants in global criminal trials. As such, the book builds upon and adds to the existing literature in this field by providing a comprehensive coverage of the intersection between these disciplines for vulnerable defendants in the courtroom. Key issues covered include: vulnerable defendants and the pre-trial process; the trial process; the use of neuroscience as expert evidence at trial; and vulnerable defendants, neuroscience and mitigation of sentence. Through original exploration presented by contributors from both academia and practice, the book will be of interest to academics, researchers and policy-makers working in the areas of Criminal Law and Procedure.

(temporary: from the Introduction) As a result, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation decided to support a three-year multidisciplinary initiative, The Law and Neuroscience Project, that created teams (termed "research networks") of lawyers, neuroscientists and philosophers to explore the appropriate conceptual relation of neuroscience and law and to engage in empirical investigations that would demonstrate the specific relevance of neuroscience to law. Although there was a substantial range of opinion among Project participants about the potential relevance of neuroscience to criminal law, it became apparent that a basic primer or handbook that set forth a statement of the relation as the authors understand it at present would be enormously helpful to practicing lawyers, judges, and legal policy makers as they increasingly were confronted with claims based on neuroscience information. The goal is to provide accurate information and to clarify the basic questions that will inevitable arise so that the criminal law can avoid confusion and mistakes based on inadequate understanding.

A leading Supreme Court expert recounts the personal and philosophical rivalries that forged our nation's highest court and continue to shape our daily lives The Supreme Court is the most mysterious branch of government, and yet the Court is at root a human institution, made up of very bright people with very strong egos, for whom political and judicial conflicts often become personal. In this compelling work of character-driven history, Jeffrey Rosen recounts the history of the Court through the personal and philosophical rivalries on the bench that transformed the law—and by extension, our lives. The story begins with the great Chief Justice John Marshall and President Thomas Jefferson, cousins from the Virginia elite whose differing visions of America set the tone for the Court's first hundred years. The tale continues after the Civil War with Justices John Marshall Harlan and Oliver Wendell Holmes, who clashed over the limits of majority rule. Rosen then examines the Warren Court era through the lens of the liberal icons Hugo Black and William O. Douglas, for whom personality loomed larger than ideology. He concludes with a pairing from our own era, the conservatives William H. Rehnquist and Antonin Scalia, only one of whom was able to build majorities in support of his views. Through these four rivalries, Rosen brings to life the perennial conflict that has animated the Court—between those justices guided by strong ideology and those who forge coalitions and adjust to new realities. He illuminates the relationship between judicial temperament and judicial success or failure. The stakes are nothing less than the future of American jurisprudence.

This eBook is a collection of articles from a Frontiers Research Topic. Frontiers Research Topics are very popular trademarks of the Frontiers Journals Series: they are collections of at least ten articles, all centered on a particular subject. With their unique mix of varied contributions from Original Research to Review Articles, Frontiers Research Topics unify the most influential researchers, the latest key findings and historical advances in a hot research area! Find out more on how to host your own Frontiers Research Topic or contribute to one as an author by contacting the Frontiers Editorial Office: frontiersin.org/about/contact.

Law regulates human behaviour, a phenomenon about which neuroscience has much to say. Neuroscience can tell us whether a defendant suffers from a brain abnormality, or injury and it can correlate these neural deficits with criminal offending. Using fMRI and other technologies it might indicate whether a witness is telling lies or the truth. It can further propose neuro-interventions to 'change' the brains of offenders and so to reduce their propensity to offend. And, it can make suggestions about whether a defendant knows or merely suspects a prohibited state of affairs; so, drawing distinctions among the mental states that are central to legal responsibility. Each of these matters has philosophical import; is a neurological 'deficit' inculpatory or exculpatory; what is the proper role for law if the mind is no more than the brain; is lying really a brain state and can neuroscience really 'read' the brain? In this edited collection, leading contributors to the field provide new insights on these matters, bringing to light the great challenges that arise when disciplinary boundaries merge.

This important volume is the first to address the use of neuroimaging in civil and criminal forensic contexts and to include discussion of prior precedents and court decisions. Equally useful for practicing psychiatrists and psychologists, it reviews both the legal and ethical consideraitons of neuroimaging.

Whereas the past few years have repeatedly been referred to as the “era of biotechnology”, most recently the impression has emerged that at least the same degree of attention is being paid to the latest developments in the field of neurosciences. It has now become nearly impossible to maintain an overview of the number of research projects dealing with the functionality of the brain – for example concerning its organizational structure – or projects dealing with the topics of legal responsibility, brain-computer interface applications, neuromarketing, lie detection or mind reading. These procedures are connected to a number of legal questions concerning the framework conditions of research projects as well as the right approach to the findings generated. Given the primary importance of the topic for the latest developments, it is essential to compare the different legal systems and strategies that they offer for dealing with these legal implications. Therefore, the book International Neurolaw – A Comparative Analysis contains several country reports from around the world, as well as those of international organizations such as UNESCO, in order to show the different legal approaches to the topic and possible interactions.

This landmark publication offers a unique comparative and interdisciplinary study of criminal insanity and neuroscience. Criminal law theories and ideologies which underpin the regulation of criminal insanity have always been the subject of controversy. The history of criminal insanity is characterised by conceptual and empirical tension between two disciplinary realms: the law and the mind sciences. The authors in this anthology explore in depth the state of the art of legal insanity and the numerous intricate, fascinating, pioneering and sophisticated questions raised by the integration of different criminal law and behaviour theories, diverse disciplines and methodologies, in a genuinely interdisciplinary perspective. This volume will serve as a practical guide for the comparative legal scholar and the judge, as well as stimulating scholarly reading for the neuroscientist, the social scientist and the philosopher with interdisciplinary scientific interests.

This project addressed the admissibility of expert evidence in criminal proceedings in England and Wales. Currently, too much expert opinion evidence is admitted without adequate scrutiny because no clear test is being applied to determine whether the evidence is sufficiently reliable to be admitted. Juries may therefore be reaching conclusions on the basis of unreliable evidence, as confirmed by a number of miscarriages of justice in recent years. Following consultation on a discussion paper (LCCP 190, 2009, ISDBN 9780118404655) the Commission recommends that there should be a new reliability-based admissibility test for expert evidence in criminal proceedings. The test would not need to be applied routinely or unnecessarily, but it would be applied in appropriate cases and it would result in the exclusion of unreliable expert opinion evidence. Under the test, expert opinion evidence would not be admitted unless it was adjudged to be sufficiently reliable to go before a jury. The draft Criminal Evidence (Experts) Bill published with the report (as Appendix A) sets out the admissibility test and also provides the guidance judges would need when applying the test, setting out the key reasons why an expert's opinion evidence might be unreliable. The Bill also codifies (with slight modifications) the uncontroversial aspects of the present law, so that all the admissibility requirements for expert evidence would be set out in a single Act of Parliament and carry equal authority.

Demonstrates how the explanatory power of brain scans in particular and neuroscience more generally has been overestimated, arguing that the overzealous application of brain science has undermined notions of free will and responsibility.