Description
Book SynopsisThis volume debates the conceptual, epistemic and practical questions that arise when law and neuroscience meet. Containing original insights about the potential reach of neuroscience and sophisticated accounts of the limitations it faces, the volume will appeal to lawyers, criminologists, philosophers, psychologists, neuroscientists and psychiatrists.
Table of ContentsIntroduction; Part I. Conceptual Disputes: Brains as the Locus of Responsibility?: 1. Neuroscience and the explanation of human action Dennis Patterson; 2. 'Nothing but a pack of neurons:' the moral responsibility of the human machine Michael S. Moore; 3. Non-eliminative reductionism: not the theory of mind some responsibility theorists want, but the one they need Katrina Sifferd; 4. Intention as non-observational knowledge: rescuing responsibility from the brain Bebhinn Donnelly-Lazarov; 5. Efficient causation and neuroscientific explanations of criminal action Nick J. Davis; Part II. Epistemic Disputes: What does Neuroscience Tell Law about Responsibility?: 6. Lying, deception, and fMRI: a critical update Michael S. Pardo; 7. Brain-based lie detection and the mereological fallacy: reasons for optimism John Danaher; 8. Is brain reading mind reading? Pim Haselager and Giulio Mecacci; Part III. Implications for Courts and Defendants: 9. Unlucky, bad, and the space in between: why criminologists should think more about responsibility Peter Raynor; 10. Neuroscience and the criminal jurisdiction: a new approach to reliability and admissibility in the courts of England and Wales Joanna Glynn; 11. Should individuals with psychopathy be compensated for their fearlessness? (Or how neuroscience matters for equality) Marion Godman; 12. The treatment of psychopathy: conceptual and ethical issues Elizabeth Shaw.
