2004
Volume 111, Issue 3
  • ISSN: 0002-5275
  • E-ISSN: 2352-1244

Abstract

Abstract

The possible and actual normative influence of neuroscientific research has been discussed in numerous publications. One particular part of that debate covered a number of US Supreme Court decisions since the early 2000s on the constitutionality of death or lifetime sentences for minor offenders. The present paper connects these topics to the new Dutch adolescent penal law which allows to treat adult offenders until the age of 22 years under certain conditions according to the rules for minors. The justification of this law referred to adolescents’ and young adults’ brain development in a unique manner. This paper does not only describe the essential steps of the lawmaking process and the legal justification of the new adolescent penal law, but also analyzes in depth in how far the used neuroscientific findings are able to support the normative conclusions.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/ANTW2019.3.005.SCHL
2019-10-01
2021-09-21
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Adleman, N. E., Menon, V., Blasey, C. M., White, C. D., Warsofsky, I. S., Glover, G. H., & Reiss, A. L.(2002)A developmental fMRI study of the stroop color-word task, Neuroimage16(1), pp. 61-75. doi: 10.1006/nimg.2001.1046
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Batts, S.(2009)Brain lesions and their implications in criminal responsibility, Behavioral Sciences and the Law27(2), pp. 261-272. doi: 10.1002/bsl.857
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Berker, S.(2009)The Normative Insignificance of Neuroscience, Philosophy & Public Affairs37(4), pp. 293-329.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bieri, P.(2001)Das Handwerk der Freiheit. Über die Entdeckung des eigenen Willens. München:Carl Hanser.
  5. Buckholtz, J. W., & Faigman, D. L.(2014)Promises, promises for neuroscience and law. Current Biology24(18), R861-R867. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2014.07.057
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Canli, T., & Amin, Z.(2002)Neuroimaging of emotion and personality: scientific evidence and ethical considerations, Brain and Cognition50(3), pp. 414-431.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Casey, B. J., Tottenham, N., Liston, C., & Durston, S.(2005)Imaging the developing brain: what have we learned about cognitive development?Trends in Cognitive Sciences9(3), pp. 104-110. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2005.01.011
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Caulfield, T., & Condit, C.(2012)Science and the sources of hype. Public Health Genomics15(3-4), pp. 209-217. doi: 10.1159/000336533
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Cohen, A. O., & Casey, B. J.(2014)Rewiring juvenile justice: the intersection of developmental neuroscience and legal policy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences18(2), pp. 63-65. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2013.11.002
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Cranford, R. E.(1989)The neurologist as ethics consultant and as a member of the institutional ethics committee: The neuroethicist, Neurologic Clinics, 7(4), pp. 697-713.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Crick, F., & Koch, C.(1998)Consciousness and neuroscience. Cerebral Cortex8(2), pp. 97-107.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Crone, E.(2008)Het puberende brein. Over de ontwikkeling van de hersenen in de unieke periode van de adolescentie. Amsterdam:Bert Bakker.
  13. Dehue, T.(2014)Betere Mensen. Over gezondheid als keuze en koopwaar. Amsterdam:Augustus.
  14. Dennett, D. C.(2003)Freedom evolves. London:Allen Lane.
  15. Draaisma, D.(2005)Het verdriet van de kosmopoliet, NRC Handelsblad.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Dresser, R.(2008) Neuroscience’s Uncertain Threat to Criminal Law, Hastings Center Report, November/December2008, pp. 9-10.
  17. Dreyfuss, M., Caudle, K., Drysdale, A. T., Johnston, N. E., Cohen, A. O., Somerville, L. H., . . . Casey, B. J.(2014)Teens Impulsively React rather than Retreat from Threat, Developmental Neuroscience36(3-4), pp. 220-227. doi: 10.1159/000357755
    [Google Scholar]
  18. du Bois-Reymond, E. (1872/1974) Über die Grenzen des Naturerkennens, in E.du Bois-Reymond (red.) Vorträge über Philosophie und Gesellschaft. Hamburg:Meiner.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Farah, M. J.(2012)Neuroethics: the ethical, legal, and societal impact of neuroscience. Annual Review of Psychology63, pp. 571-591. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100438
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Farahany, N. A.(2015)Neuroscience and behavioral genetics in US criminal law: an empirical analysis, Journal of Law and the Bioscience2(3), pp. 485-509. doi: 10.1093/jlb/lsv059
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Feigenson, N.(2006)Brain imaging and courtroom evidence: on the admissibility and persuasiveness of fMRI, International Journal of Law in Context2(3), pp. 233-255.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Francken, J. C., & Slors, M.(2018)Neuroscience and everyday life: Facing the translation problem. Brain and Cognition120, pp. 67-74. doi: 10.1016/j.bandc.2017.09.004
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Freeman, M.(2006)Introduction: law and neuroscience. International Journal of Law in Context2(3), pp. 217-219.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Gazzaniga, M. S.(2005)The Ethical Brain. New York, Washington, D.C.:DANA Press.
  25. Gazzanigga, M. S.(1998)The Mind’s Past. Berkely:University of California Press.
  26. Gazzanigga, M. S., & Gallagher, S.(1998)The Neuronal Platonist, Journal of Consciousness Studies5(5-6), pp. 706-717.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Goodenough, O. R., & Tucker, M.(2010)Law and Cognitive Neuroscience, in: J.Hagan, K. L.Scheppele, & T. R.Tyker (red.) Annual Review of Law and Social Science, Volume 6. Palo Alto:Annual Reviews, pp. 61-92.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Greely, H. T., & Illes, J.(2007)Neuroscience-based lie detection: the urgent need for regulation, American Journal of Law and Medicine33(2-3), pp. 377-431.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Greene, J., & Cohen, J.(2004)For the law, neuroscience changes nothing and everything, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 359(1451), pp. 1775-1785. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2004.1546
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Greene, J. D., Sommerville, R. B., Nystrom, L. E., Darley, J. M., & Cohen, J. D.(2001)An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment, Science293(5537), pp. 2105-2108.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Hermans, W. F.(1966)Nooit meer slapen. Amsterdam:De Bezige Bij.
  32. Hyrtl, J. (1864/1897) Die Materialistische Weltanschauung unserer Zeit. Wien:Braumüller.
  33. Illes, J., & Raffin, T. A.(2002)Neuroethics: an emerging new discipline in the study of brain and cognition, Brain and Cognition50(3), pp. 341-344.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Janich, P.(2009)Kein neues Menschenbild. Zur Sprache der Hirnforschung. Frankfurt am Main.
  35. Kahane, G., & Shackel, N.(2008)Do abnormal responses show utilitarian bias?Nature452, E5.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Kambam, P., & Thompson, C.(2009)The development of decision-making capacities in children and adolescents: psychological and neurological perspectives and their implications for juvenile defendants. Behavioral Sciences and the Law27(2), pp. 173-190. doi: 10.1002/bsl.859
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Lamme, V.(2004)Weg met de psychologie!Nederlands Tijdschrift voor de Psychologie59, pp. 91-110.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Lamme, V.(2011)De vrije wil bestaat niet. Over wie er de echt de baas is in het brein. Amsterdam: Bert Bakker.
  39. Leefmann, J., Levallois, C., & Hildt, E.(2016)Neuroethics 1995-2012: A Bibliometric Analysis of the Guiding Themes of an Emerging Research Field, Frontiers in Human Neuroscience10(336). doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2016.00336
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Meynen, G.(2010)Toerekeningsvatbaarheid. Over vrije wil, wetenschap en recht. Amsterdam: Wolf Legal Publishers.
  41. Meynen, G.(2014)Neurolaw: Neuroscience, Ethics, and Law. Review Essay, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice17(4), pp. 819-829. doi: 10.1007/s10677‑014‑9501‑4
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Meynen, G.(2016)Neurolaw: recognizing opportunities and challenges for psychiatry, Journal of Psychiatry & Neuroscience41(1), pp. 3-5. doi: 10.1503/jpn.150317
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Morse, S. J.(2007)The non-problem of free will in forensic psychiatry and psychology, Behavioral Sciences and the Law25(2), pp. 203-220. doi: 10.1002/bsl.744
    [Google Scholar]
  44. O’Connor, C., Rees, G., & Joffe, H.(2012)Neuroscience in the public sphere, Neuron74(2), pp. 220-226. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2012.04.004
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Pandolfi, F. M.(1993)European decade of brain research, Italian Journal of Neurological Sciences14, pp. 395-397.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Pauen, M.(2004)Illusion Freiheit? Mögliche und unmögliche Konsequenzen der Hirnforschung. Frankfurt a. M.:S. Fischer.
  47. Paus, T., Collins, D. L., Evans, A. C., Leonard, G., Pike, B., & Zijdenbos, A.(2001)Maturation of white matter in the human brain: A review of magnetic resonance studies, Brain Research Bulletin54(3), pp. 255-266. doi: 10.1016/s0361‑9230(00)00434‑2
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Roskies, A.(2002)Neuroethics for the new millennium, Neuron35(1), pp. 21-23.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Roth, G.(1997)Das Gehirn und seine Wirklichkeit, 5. Auflage. Frankfurt am Main.
  50. Schleim, S. (2008a) Gedankenlesen – Pionierarbeit der Hirnforschung. Hannover: Heise Verlag.
  51. Schleim, S. (2008b) Moral Physiology, Its Limitations and Philosophical Implications, Jahrbuch für Wissenschaft und Ethik13, pp. 51-80.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Schleim, S.(2011)Die Neurogesellschaft: Wie die Hirnforschung Recht und Moral herausfordert. Hannover: Heise.
  53. Schleim, S.(2012)Brains in context in the neurolaw debate: The examples of free will and "dangerous" brains, International Journal of Law and Psychiatry35(2), pp. 104-111. doi: 10.1016/j.ijlp.2012.01.001
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Schleim, S.(2015)The Half-Life of the Moral Dilemma Task: A Case Study in Experimental (Neuro-) Philosophy, in J.Clausen & N.Levy (red.) Handbook of Neuroethics. Dordrecht:Springer, pp. 185-199.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Schleim, S. (2018a) Enhancement – een probleem van betekenis voor de neuro-ethiek?Podium voor Bio-ethiek24, pp. 12-15.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Schleim, S. (2018b) Subjective Experience, Heterophenomenology, or Neuroimaging? A Perspective on the Meaning and Application of Mental Disorder Terms, in Particular Major Depressive Disorder, Frontiers in Psychology9(702). doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00702
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Schleim, S.(2019)Die Crux mit den Diagnosen, Psychologie Heute1, pp. 58-62.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Schleim, S., & Roiser, J. P.(2009)fMRI in translation: the challenges facing real-world applications, Frontiers in Human Neuroscience3(63), pp. 1-7.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Schleim, S., Spranger, T. M., Erk, S., & Walter, H.(2011)From moral to legal judgment: the influence of normative context in lawyers and other academics, Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience6(1), pp. 48-57. doi: Doi 10.1093/Scan/Nsq010
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Schleim, S., Spranger, T. S., & Walter, H. (Eds.). (2009)Von der Neuroethik zum Neurorecht? Vom Beginn einer neuen Debatte. Göttingen:Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
  61. Singer, W.(2004). Verschaltungen legen uns fest. Wir sollten aufhören, von Freiheit zu sprechen, in: C.Geyer (red.), Hirnforschung und Willensfreiheit. Zur Deutung der neuesten Experimente. Frankfurt am Main.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Slors, M.(2012)Dat had je gedacht! Brein, bewustzijn en vrije wil in filosofisch perspectief. Amsterdam:Boom.
  63. Sperry, R. W.(1981)Changing Priorities, Annual Review of Neuroscience4, pp. 1-15.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Stern, B. H.(2001)Introduction to special issue on neurolaw, Neurorehabilitation 16(2), pp. 67-68.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Swaab, D. F.(2010)Wij zijn ons brein. Van baarmoeder tot alzheimer. Amsterdam:Atlas-Contact.
  66. Taylor, J. S.(1995)Neurolaw – Towards a New Medical Jurisprudence, Brain Injury9(7), pp. 745-751. doi: 10.3109/02699059509008230
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Taylor, J. S.(2001)An overview of neurolaw for the clinician: What every potential witness should know, Neurorehabilitation16(2), pp. 69-77.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Thompson, R. A., & Nelson, C. A.(2001)Developmental science and the media – Early brain development, American Psychologist56(1), pp. 5-15. doi: 10.1037//0003‑066x.56.1.5
    [Google Scholar]
  69. van Aalderen, S., van Atteveldt, N. M., & Grol, M.(2015)Kijken in het brein. Mythen en mogelijkheden. Amsterdam:Querido.
  70. Verplaetse, J.(2010)Zonder vrije wil. Een filosofische essay over verantwoordelijkheid. Amsterdam:Nieuwezijds.
  71. Vincent, N. A.(2011)Legal responsibility adjudication and the normative authority of the mind sciences, Philosophical Explorations14(3), pp. 315-331. doi: 10.1080/13869795.2011.594937
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Vincent, N. A.(2015)A Compatibilist Theory of Legal Responsibility, Criminal Law and Philosophy, 9(3), pp. 477-498. doi: 10.1007/s11572‑013‑9249‑2
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Vogt, C.(1874)Physiologische Briefe. Gießen:Rickersche Buchhandlung.
  74. von Liszt, F.(1906)Die Behandlung der vermindert Zurechnungsfähigen. 10. Internationale Versammlung der IKV zu Hamburg 1905, Mitteilungen 13, pp. 471-489.
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Wegner, D.(2002)The Illusion of Conscious Will. Cambridge, MA.
  76. Weijers, I.(2018)Children and the law in the Netherlands. A comparative introduction. The Hague:Eleven.
  77. Welberg, L.(2008)Neuroimaging: Free Will?Nature Reviews Neuroscience9(6), p. 410.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.5117/ANTW2019.3.005.SCHL
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): adolescent brain; legal responsibility; neuroethics; neurolaw; neurophilosophy
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error