Abstract
The rapidly growing field of cognitive neuroscience holds the promise of explaining the operations of the mind in terms of the physical operations of the brain. Some suggest that our emerging understanding of the physical causes of human (mis)behaviour will have a transformative effect on the law. Others argue that new neuroscience will provide only new details and that existing legal doctrine can accommodate whatever new information neuroscience will provide. We argue that neuroscience will probably have a transformative effect on the law, despite the fact that existing legal doctrine can, in principle, accommodate whatever neuroscience will tell us. New neuroscience will change the law, not by undermining its current assumptions, but by transforming people's moral intuitions about free will and responsibility. This change in moral outlook will result not from the discovery of crucial new facts or clever new arguments, but from a new appreciation of old arguments, bolstered by vivid new illustrations provided by cognitive neuroscience. We foresee, and recommend, a shift away from punishment aimed at retribution in favour of a more progressive, consequentialist approach to the criminal law.
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (152.3 KB).
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Adolphs R. Social cognition and the human brain. Trends Cogn Sci. 1999 Dec;3(12):469–479. doi: 10.1016/s1364-6613(99)01399-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Bowles Samuel, Gintis Herbert. The evolution of strong reciprocity: cooperation in heterogeneous populations. Theor Popul Biol. 2004 Feb;65(1):17–28. doi: 10.1016/j.tpb.2003.07.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Boyd Robert, Gintis Herbert, Bowles Samuel, Richerson Peter J. The evolution of altruistic punishment. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 Mar 11;100(6):3531–3535. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0630443100. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Brosnan Sarah F., De Waal Frans B. M. Monkeys reject unequal pay. Nature. 2003 Sep 18;425(6955):297–299. doi: 10.1038/nature01963. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Fehr Ernst, Gächter Simon. Altruistic punishment in humans. Nature. 2002 Jan 10;415(6868):137–140. doi: 10.1038/415137a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Heberlein Andrea S., Adolphs Ralph. Impaired spontaneous anthropomorphizing despite intact perception and social knowledge. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 May 3;101(19):7487–7491. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0308220101. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- McCloskey M., Caramazza A., Green B. Curvilinear motion in the absence of external forces: naive beliefs about the motion of objects. Science. 1980 Dec 5;210(4474):1139–1141. doi: 10.1126/science.210.4474.1139. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Sanfey Alan G., Rilling James K., Aronson Jessica A., Nystrom Leigh E., Cohen Jonathan D. The neural basis of economic decision-making in the Ultimatum Game. Science. 2003 Jun 13;300(5626):1755–1758. doi: 10.1126/science.1082976. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Saxe R., Carey S., Kanwisher N. Understanding other minds: linking developmental psychology and functional neuroimaging. Annu Rev Psychol. 2004;55:87–124. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142044. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Scholl BJ, Tremoulet PD. Perceptual causality and animacy. Trends Cogn Sci. 2000 Aug;4(8):299–309. doi: 10.1016/s1364-6613(00)01506-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Steinberg Laurence, Scott Elizabeth S. Less guilty by reason of adolescence: developmental immaturity, diminished responsibility, and the juvenile death penalty. Am Psychol. 2003 Dec;58(12):1009–1018. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.58.12.1009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]