Neuroscience within the technicalization of law: Pros and cons of Neurolaw

Journal title SOCIOLOGIA DEL DIRITTO
Author/s Michele Miravalle
Publishing Year 2022 Issue 2022/1
Language Italian Pages 6 P. 129-152 File size 272 KB
DOI 10.3280/SD2022-001006
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Article preview

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

This article is a critical recognition of the increasing interested about the impact of neuroscience on human sciences, such as law. In the last two decades, the neuro+ disciplines became an interesting field of researches and reflections, rising enormous funds from public and pri-vate institutions. The article reflects on the possibility to create a cooperative and not conflictual relation between neuroscience and law, where the theoretical approach of the sociology of law could play a crucial role. In order to do so, we need to go beyond the "traditional" ques-tion of free will and responsibility and to consider neuroscience as part of a larger horizon to-gether with ICT technologies, artificial intelligence and genomics. However, this new neo-positive approach rises many concerns especially if applied to criminal law and correctional policies.

Keywords: Neuroscience - Free will - Neurolaw - Punishment - Neopositivism

  1. Alexander, Jeffrey C., Bernhard Giesen, Richard Munch & Neil J. Smelser (eds.), 1987. The Micro-Macro Link. Berkeley-Los Angeles-London: University of California Press.
  2. Basile, Fabio, & Giuseppe Vallar, 2017. Neuroscienze e diritto penale: le questioni sul tappeto. Diritto penale contemporaneo, 4: 269-289.
  3. Baskin-Sommers, Arielle R., & Karelle Fonteneau, 2016. Correctional Change through Neuroscience. Fordham Law Review, 85, 423. -- hp://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/6r/vol85/iss2/2 (consultato il 4 settembre 2021).
  4. Castelfranchi, Cristiano, 2014. Neuronorme: per un approccio non riduzionista. Cosa cercare e non cercare nel cervello. Rivista di filosofia del diritto, 2014, numero speciale, 3: 23-40.
  5. Chandler, Jennifer A., Neil Harrel & Tijana Potkonjak, 2018. Neurolaw today - A systematic review of the recent law and neuroscience literature. International Journal of Law Psychiatry, 65, 101- 341.
  6. Cominelli, Luigi, 2015. Cognizione del diritto. Per una sociologia cognitiva dell’agire giuridico. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  7. Cominelli, Luigi,, 2018. Cognition of the Law. Toward a Cognitive Sociology of Law and Behavior. Cham: Springer.
  8. Cominelli, Luigi,, 2018. Framing Choices to Influence Behaviors: A Debate on the Pros and Cons of Nudging. Diritto & Questioni Pubbliche, 18, 1: 292-306.
  9. Costanzi, Claudio, 2018. La matematica del processo: oltre le colonne d’Ercole della giustizia penale. Questione Giustizia, 4: 166-188.
  10. Crawford, Matthew B., 2008, The limits of neuro-talk. The New Atlantis, 19, -- https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-limits-of-neuro-talk
  11. Damasio, Hanna, Thomas Grabowski, Frank Randall, Albert B. Galaburda & Antonio Damasio, 1994. The Return of Phineas Gage: Clues about the Brain from the Skull of a Famous Patient. Science, 264, 5162: 1102-1105.
  12. Dash, Sidhartha Sekhar, Harish Chandra Padhi, & Biswadeep Das, 2020. Neurolaw: A Jurisprudential Analysis. European Journal of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, 10: 1546-1560.
  13. D’Avack, Lorenzo, 2013. Neuroscienze ed esperimenti sull’uomo: a partire dall’analisi del parere del Comitato nazionale per la bioetica. In Laura Palazzani & Roberto Zanotti (a cura di). Il diritto nelle neuroscienze. Non “siamo” i nostri cervelli. Torino: Giappichelli.
  14. De Giorgi, Alessandro, 2002. Il governo dell’eccedenza. Postfordismo e controllo della moltitudine. Verona: Ombre Corte.
  15. Dworkin, Ronald, 1975. Hard Cases. Harvard Law Review, 88, 6: 1057-1109.
  16. Eagleman, David, 2012. Pourquoi les sciences du cerveau peuvent éclairer le droit. In Aa.Vv., Le cerveau et la loi - Analyse de l'émergence du neurodroit, Centre d’analyse stratégique. Document de travail, 7/2012: 33-53.
  17. Erickson, Steven, 2010. Limits of Neurolaw. The Houston Journal of Health Law & Policy, 11: 303-320.
  18. Faigman, David, John Monahan & Christopher Slobogin, 2014. Group to Individual (G2i) Inference in Scientific Expert Testimony. University of Chicago Law Review, 81: 417-480.
  19. Fairweather, Leslie, 2000. Prison Architecture: Policies, Design and Experience. London: Routledge.
  20. Farahany, Nita, 2016. Neuroscience and Behavioral Genetics in US Criminal Law. An Empirical Analysis. Journal of Law and the Biosciences, vol 2: 485-509.
  21. Frances, Allen, 2013. Primo, non curare chi è normale. Contro l’invenzione delle malattie. Milano: Feltrinelli.
  22. Ferrajoli, Luigi, 1989. Diritto e ragione. Teoria del garantismo penale. Roma-Bari: Laterza.
  23. Gallo, Enrico, & Vincenzo Ruggiero, 1989. Il carcere immateriale. La detenzione come fabbrica di handicap. Torino: Edizioni Sonda.
  24. Gazzaniga, Michael, 2018. On Determinism and Human Responsibility. In Gregg Caruso & Owen Flanagan (eds.), Neuroexistentialism: Meaning, Morals, and Purpose in the Age of Neuroscience. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  25. Gertner, Nancy, 2016. Neuroscience and Sentencing. Fordham Law Review, 85: 533-546.
  26. Gkotsi, Georgia Martha, & Jacques Gasser, 2016. Neuroscience in forensic psychiatry: From responsibility to dangerousness. Ethical and legal implications of using neuroscience for dangerousness assessments. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 46: 58-67.
  27. Goodenough, Oliver, & Micaela Tucker, 2010. Law and Cognitive Neuroscience. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 6: 61-92.
  28. Grandi, Ciro, 2016. Neuroscienze e responsabilità penale. Nuove soluzioni per problemi antichi? Torino: Giappichelli.
  29. Greely, Henry, 2007. Neuroscience and Criminal justice: Not Responsibility but Treatment. Kansas Law Review, 56: 1103-1138. DOI: 10.17161/1808.20016
  30. Greely, Henry & Nita Farahany, 2019. Neuroscience and the Criminal Justice System. Annual Review of Criminology, 2: 451-471.
  31. Greene, Joshua, & Jonathan Cohen, 2004. For the Law, Neuroscience Changes Nothing and Everything. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, Biological Sciences, 359, 1451: 1775-1785.
  32. Hertwig, Ralph, & Till Grüne-Yanoff, 2017. Nudging and Boosting: Steering or Empowering Good Decisions. Perspectives on Psychological Sciences, 12, 6: 973-986. DOI: 10.1177/1745691617702496
  33. Holton, Richard, 2009. Willing, Wanting, Waiting. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  34. Jones, Owen D., Jeffrey D. Schall & Francis X. Shen, 2021. Law and Neuroscience, 2nd edition. Alphen aan den Rijn: Wolters Kluwer.
  35. Jones, Owen D., Jeffrey D. Schall, Read Montague, & Gideon Yaffe, 2020. Detecting Mens Rea in the Brain. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 169, 1: 1-31.
  36. Jones, Owen D., Jeffrey D. Schall, Read Montague, & Gideon Yaffe & Robert Kurzban, 2010. Intuitions of Punishment. Chicago Law Review, 77: 1633-1640
  37. Lavazza, Andrea, & Massimo Reichlin, 2019. Introduction: Moral Enhancement. Topoi, 38: 1-5.
  38. Lombardi Vallauri, Luigi, 2014. Conclusioni. Rivista di filosofia del diritto, III, numero speciale: 145-151.
  39. Luhmann, Niklas, 1978. Sistema giuridico e dogmatica giuridica. Traduzione italiana di Alberto Febbrajo. Bologna: il Mulino.
  40. Miravalle, Michele, 2020. Gli orizzonti della teoria del nudging sulla normatività: verso un diritto senza sanzioni? Biolaw Journal, 1: 441-461. DOI: 10.15168/2284-4503-536
  41. Morse, Stephan, 2004. New Neuroscience, Old Problems. In Brent Garland (ed.), Neuroscience and the Law: Brain, Mind, and the Scales of Justice. New York: Dana Press.
  42. Nelken, David, 2004. Using the Concept of Legal Culture. Australian Journal of Legal Philosophy, 29: 1-28.
  43. Neppi Modona, Guido, 1978. Legislazione penale. Il mondo contemporaneo, 1, 2: 584-599.
  44. Persson, Ingmar, & Julian Savulescu, 2019. Inadatti al futuro. L’esigenza di un potenziamento morale. Torino: Rosenberg & Sellier.
  45. Prina, Franco, 2019. Devianza e criminalità. Concetti, metodi di ricerca, cause, politiche. Roma: Carocci.
  46. Pupolizio, Ivan, 2020. Una moneta privata globale. Stato e mercato, 3: 424-457. DOI: 10.1425/99821
  47. Santosuosso, Amedeo, 2014. Cognitive neuroscience, intelligent robots and the interplay humans-machines. Rivista di filosofia del diritto, III, numero speciale: 91-106.
  48. Sapolsky, Robert, 2021. Neuroscience and the Law. University of St. Thomas Journal of Law and Public Policy, 15, 1: 139-149.
  49. Sapolsky, Robert, 2018. Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst. New York: Vintage Publishing.
  50. Schauer, Frederick, 2010. Neuroscience, lie-detection, and the law: Contrary to the prevailing view, the suitability of brain-based lie-detection for courtroom or forensic use should be determined according to legal and not scientific standards. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14: 101-103.
  51. Shen, Francis X., 2021. Toward a Definition of Neurolaw. University of St. Thomas Journal of Law and Public Policy, 15: 174-185.
  52. Simon, Herbert A., 1957. Models of Man: Social and Rational. Mathematical Essays on Rational Human Behavior in Society Setting. New York: Wiley.
  53. Simoncini, Andrea, 2019. L’algoritmo incostituzionale: intelligenza artificiale e il futuro delle libertà. BioLaw Journal, 1: 63-89. DOI: 10.15168/2284-4503-352
  54. Snead, O. Carter, 2011. Cognitive Neuroscience and the Future of Punishment. In Jeffrey Rosen & Benjamin Wittes (eds.), Constitution 3.0: Freedom and Technological Change. Washington: Brookings Press.
  55. Sunstein, Cass, 2014. Why Nudge? The Politics of Libertarian Paternalism. New Haven: Yale University Press.
  56. Umiltà, Carlo, 2014. Limits of Cognitive Neuroscience. Rivista di filosofia del diritto, III, numero speciale: 7-23.
  57. Viale, Riccardo, 2018. Oltre il nudge. Libertà di scelta, felicità e comportamento. Bologna: il Mulino.
  58. Wacquant, Loïc, 1999. Punishing the Poor: The Neoliberal Government of Social Insecurity. Duke: Duke University Press.
  59. Wegner, Daniel, 2002. The Illusion of Conscious Will. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  60. Zola, Irving, 1972. Medicine as an Institution of Social Control. The Sociological Review, 2: 487-504.

Michele Miravalle, Le neuroscienze nella tecnicizzazione del diritto. Le opportunità e i rischi del Neurolaw in "SOCIOLOGIA DEL DIRITTO " 1/2022, pp 129-152, DOI: 10.3280/SD2022-001006