The Law and Neuroscience Blog has been moved to a new URL. In the future to access the blog, please visit: http://lawneuro.org/blog/
10/02/2012
08/14/2012
Punishing Without Free Will
Luis Chiesa
Pace University School of Law
Abstract:
Most observers agree that free will is central to our practices of blaming and punishment. Yet the conventional conception of free will is under sustained attack by the so-called determinists. Determinists claim that all of the events that take place in the universe – including human acts – are the product of causally determined forces over which we have no control. If human conduct is really determined by factors that we cannot control, how can our acts be the product of our own unfettered free will and what would that mean for the criminal law? The overwhelming majority of legal scholars and philosophers reply that, even if it turns out that human conduct is fully determined by forces over which they lack control, we ought to nevertheless believe in free will and thus continue to blame actors for engaging in wrongful conduct. They argue that we ought to rationalize free will in this manner because dispensing with free will is potentially catastrophic to human relationships, calling into question our judgments about blame and praise and, thus, about criminal responsibility and punishment. This Article contends that this rationalization is wrong and unnecessary. The fact of free will is not essential to maintaining a healthy society and a well functioning system of criminal justice. Although retribution could not be invoked as a reason for imposing punishment if humans are not capable of free choice, punishment could still be justified on consequentialist grounds. In a world without free will, the purpose of punishment would shift from giving to the offender what he deserved to protecting society from dangerous individuals who are nevertheless not to blame for their transgressions. Interestingly, this would likely lead to a more economically efficient and humane system of criminal justice that relies less on incarceration and more on less intrusive but equally effective methods of social control.
07/19/2012
The Jerusalem International Conference on Neuroplasticity and Cognitive Modifiability
March 10-13, 2013 - The Jerusalem International Conference on Neuroplasticity and Cognitive Modifiability: The role of Cognitive Intervention in the shaping of wo/man
"Scientific advancements in conceptualization and technology make available new tools for professionals facing medical, psychological, educational, and societal problems facing human beings on a global scale. This conference brings together revolutionary developments in two disciplines--cognitive modifiability and the neurosciences. Neuroscience brings evidence that modifiability is possible, and cognitive modifiability shows how to make it happen! This meeting offers the opportunity for a worldwide gathering of scientists, practitioners, therapists, and educators who come from different professional perspectives but share common interests to explore and become familiar with the developments in these related fields. The common theme is modifiability. Revolutionary developments in the brain sciences support the theory and belief that basic human behaviors and functions can be modified."
For more on this conference, visit: www.brainconvention.net
07/10/2012
Science Takes the Stand
Nature Editorial: Science takes the stand
Two legal rulings by the US Supreme Court last week will have significant implications for research into health-care outcomes and for how neuroscience is used in sentencing juveniles.
To read more, visit: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v487/n7405/full/487005a.html
06/28/2012
Supreme Court Majority Cites Neuroscience Research
On Monday, June 25, 2012, Justice Kagan announced the opinion for the Court in Miller v. Alabama
and Jackson v. Hobbs, holding in a five-to-four vote, that “the Eighth Amendment forbids a sentencing scheme that mandates life in prison without possibility of parole for juvenile offenders.”
In footnote 5 of the opinion, the Court notes: “The evidence presented to us in these cases indicates that the science and social science supporting Roper’s and Graham’s conclusions have become even stronger. See, e.g., Brief for American Psychological Association et al. as Amici Curiae 3 (“[A]n ever-growing body of research in developmental psychology and neuroscience continues to confirm and strengthen the Court’s conclusions”); id., at 4 (“It is increasingly clear that adolescent brains are not yet fully mature in regions and systems related to higher-order executive functions such as impulse control, planning ahead, and risk avoidance”); Brief for J. Lawrence Aber et al. as Amici Curiae 12–28 (discussing post-Graham studies); id., at 26–27 (“Numerous studies post-Graham indicate that exposure to deviant peers leads to increased deviant behavior and is a consistent predictor of adolescent delinquency” (footnote omitted))”.
The Court also mentions work by MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Law and Neuroscience Members, Larry Steinberg and Elizabeth Scott (“Less Guilty by Reason of Adolescence: Developmental Immaturity, Diminished Responsibility, and the Juvenile Death Penalty, 58 Am. Psychologist 1009, 1014 (2003)”) on page 8 in a discussion of Roper.
Link to the Supreme Court Opinion: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-9646g2i8.pdf
and check your regular news sources for this week’s extensive coverage of the opinion.
06/22/2012
Neurolaw News
The MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Law and Neuroscience distributes Neurolaw News, which highlights important items of interest for the neurolaw community. These include notifications of new publications, news of upcoming neurolaw conferences, and the like. To avoid inbox clutter, distributions occur approximately once every 2 months.
To subscribe to the listserv, please visit: http://www.lawneuro.org/listserv.php
For the latest edition of Neurolaw News, please visit: http://www.lawneuro.org/listserv.php#archives
06/14/2012
Room for Debate: When to Punish, and When to Rehabilitate
New York Times, The Opinion Pages: Larry Steinberg participated in a virtual round-table discussion, Room for Debate: When to Punish, and When to Rehabilitate, where he commented on “Seeing Juveniles’ Maturity, and Immaturity”: http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/06/05/when-to-punish-a-young-offender-and-when-to-rehabilitate/sentences-should-acknowledge-juveniles-maturity-and-immaturity
05/29/2012
What the Brain Says About Maturity
Larry Steinberg, member of the MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Law and Neuroscience, and distinguished university professor of psychology at Temple University, writes on What the Brain Says About Maturity in The Opinion Pages of the New York Times.
05/25/2012
Justice on Trial: Gangs, Neuroscience and Drug Reform
Register now for the 2012 Public Defender's Justice Summit in San Francisco
Former gang members, top law enforcement officials, leading neuroscientists and drug reform pioneers will gather for a frank and fascinating discussion at the 2012 Public Defender’s Justice Summit on Tuesday, May 29 at San Francisco Main Library.
The summit, JUSTICE ON TRIAL:
Gangs, Neuroscience and Drug Reform, will be held in the library’s Koret
Auditorium from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. The event is free, but seating is limited.
All attendees must register at sfpublicdefender.org.
The Justice Summit is the premier criminal justice conference on the West Coast. This year’s lineup
focuses on the most hotly-debated subjects: gang violence, drug decriminalization and how neuroimaging is changing our ideas about criminal culpability.
The Justice Summit is co-sponsored by the Bar Association of San Francisco, Attorneys attending the
conference will earn 4 MCLE units.
Schedule:
9 a.m.: Registration
9:30 a.m.: Keynote Speaker: UCLA Professor Jorja
Leap, author of Jumped In: What Gangs Taught Me About Violence, Drugs, Love
and Redemption.
10 a.m. Panel I: Jumped In: Strategies to Reduce Gang
Violence
11:15 a.m. Panel II: The Brain on Trial: Is Free Will
Truly Free?
12:30 p.m.: Lunch provided
1:30 p.m. Panel III: Drugs: From Felonies to Misdemeanors?
Panelists:
- Jeff Adachi, San Francisco Public Defender
- Bicka Barlow, Deputy Public Defender and DNA Expert
- Michael Biel, Commander of Investigations, SF Police Department
- Lizbett Calleros, Coordinator, HOMEY
- David Faigman, UCSF/UC Hastings
- Eric Fleming, Assistant District Attorney, Gang Prosecutions
- Geno Frazier, Expert, Youth Violence Prevention
- Ricardo Garcia-Acosta, Northwest Community Response Network
- George Gascón, SF District Attorney
- Matt Gonzalez, Chief Attorney, SF Public Defender’s Office
- Dr. Kent Kiehl, University of New Mexico, Neuroimaging Expert
- Tal Klement, Deputy Public Defender
- Mark Leno (by video): California State Senator
- Ethan Nadelmann, Executive Director, National Drug Policy Alliance
- Wendy Still, Chief, San Francisco Probation Department
- German Yambao, Case Manager, Former Inmate
05/17/2012
Neuroethics Symposium May 25, 2012 - Emory University
Neuroethics Symposium May 25, 2012 @ 1-5pm
The Truth About Lies: the Neuroscience, Law, and Ethics of Lie Detection Technologies
You Can’t Handle the Truth! The Neuroscience Program, Center for Ethics Neuroethics Program, and the Scholars Program in Interdisciplinary Neuroscience Research (SPINR) are combining forces to hold a symposium on the intersection of neuroscience and law pertaining to the use of fMRI and other lie detection technologies in the courtroom. Drs. Hank Greely, director of the Center for Law and Biosciences at Stanford Law School, Daniel Langleben, a professor of Psychiatry at University of Pennsylvania and pioneer of using fMRI to detect lies, and Steven Laken, founder, president, and CEO of Cephos; a company that markets the use of fMRI for courtroom lie detection will be providing their expertise through a series of talks. Following the talks, Emory’s Carolyn Meltzer, Chair of the Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, will join the speakers answering questions from the audience during a panel discussion moderated by Julie Seaman from Emory Law School. Mark your calendars for 1pm-5pm, May 25th, 2012 for this thought-provoking event. For now, you might want to check out this video by our Neuroethics Creative Team on Neuroscience in the Courtroom.
For more information, visit http://www.theneuroethicsblog.com/p/events.html
05/10/2012
Call for Papers: Institute of Philosophy (University of London)
Moral & Criminal Responsibility and Neuroscience
Workshop 18-19th June, 2012
Institute of Philosophy, School of Advanced Study, University of London AHRC ‘Science in Culture’ Project: Neuroscience and the Law – Free Will, Responsibility and Punishment.
Call for Abstracts
This workshop aims to bring together early-career researchers in law, philosophy, neuroscience, and psychology to explore in what way, if any, recent findings in neuroscience (broadly construed) can inform debates on the source of voluntary action and the related notions of moral and criminal responsibility.
Issues that might be addressed are: Should we hold criminals diagnosed with psychopathy less accountable for their crimes given that studies show that psychopaths have reduced moral judgment and/or empathy? Does evidence from neuroscience and behavioral genetics have any implications
for the scope of circumstances that are understood as “mitigating”? Does such evidence have any bearing on whether the purpose of punishment for criminal acts should be conceived as a matter of retribution or rehabilitation? Do the “timing experiments” by Benjamin Libet and others fundamentally undermine the voluntary control condition that many compatibilists claim is a condition for moral accountability? If so, does it in turn also undermine the condition for criminal responsibility?
Keynote Speakers:
Stephen Morse Ferdinand Wakeman Hubbell Professor of Law
& Professor of Psychology and Law in Psychiatry at the University of
Pennsylvania
Thomas Nadelhoffer Assistant Professor of Philosophy at
Dickenson College
Abstract submission: We invite PhD students and early-career researchers from philosophy, law, neuroscience and psychology to submit abstracts for presentation. We welcome any submission that addresses responsibility in the three-way intersection between law, neuroscience, and philosophy. All extended abstract submissions should be no more than 1000 words and in PDF-format. They should also be properly prepared for blind refereeing. The abstract should state the primary discipline of your paper (e.g. philosophy, neuroscience, psychology, or law) and be sent to Marion Godman, [email protected] by May 28th
(***Note approaching deadline ***).
Successful applicants will be sent an invitation to attend by May 31st. We will pay speakers’ travel (within the UK) and accommodation costs. Anyone who applies but is not selected to present will be
welcome to attend the event free of charge, but we cannot subsidize travel and accommodation.
This meeting is organized as part of an AHRC ‘Exploratory Awards’ grant (‘Science in Culture’ Project: Neuroscience and Law Project – Free Will, Responsibility and Punishment). Organisation: Marion Godman (Institute of Philosophy, London) & Helen Beebee (University of Birmingham & Institute of Philosophy London)
Contact: [email protected]
For more information see: http://ahrcfreewill.wordpress.com/