Judging mechanistic neuroscience: a preliminary conceptual-analytic framework for evaluating scientific evidence in the courtroom
The use of neuroscientific evidence in criminal trials has been steadily increasing. Despite progress made in recent decades in understanding the mechanisms of psychological and behavioral functioning, neuroscience is still in an early stage of development and its potential for influencing legal dec...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Contributors: | |
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
2018
|
| In: |
Psychology, crime & law
|
| Online Access: |
Volltext (Resolving-System) |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Keywords: |
MARC
| LEADER | 00000naa a22000002 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | 1736088130 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20201021110738.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 201021s2018 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1080/1068316X.2018.1428056 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)1736088130 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)KXP1736088130 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rda | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Baron, Emily |e VerfasserIn |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Judging mechanistic neuroscience |b a preliminary conceptual-analytic framework for evaluating scientific evidence in the courtroom |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2018 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a The use of neuroscientific evidence in criminal trials has been steadily increasing. Despite progress made in recent decades in understanding the mechanisms of psychological and behavioral functioning, neuroscience is still in an early stage of development and its potential for influencing legal decision-making is highly contentious. Scholars disagree about whether or how neuroscientific evidence might impact prescriptions of criminal culpability, particularly in instances in which evidence of an accused’s history of mental illness or brain abnormality is offered to support a plea of not criminally responsible. In the context of these debates, philosophers and legal scholars have identified numerous problems with admitting neuroscientific evidence in legal contexts. To date, however, less has been said about the challenges of evaluating the evidence upon which integrative mechanistic explanations that bring together evidence from different areas of neuroscience are based. As we explain, current criteria for evaluating such evidence to determine its admissibility in legal contexts are inadequate. Appealing to literature in the philosophy of scientific experimentation and theoretical work in the social, cognitive and behavioral sciences, we lay the groundwork for reforming these criteria and identify some of the implications of modifying them. | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Brain abnormality | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Cognitive-behavior | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Expert evidence | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Mental Illness | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Reliability and validity | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Sullivan, Jacqueline |e VerfasserIn |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Psychology, crime & law |d Getzville, NY : HeinOnline, 1994 |g 24(2018), 3, Seite 334-351 |h Online-Ressource |w (DE-627)341903574 |w (DE-600)2070124-X |w (DE-576)27234995X |x 1477-2744 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:24 |g year:2018 |g number:3 |g pages:334-351 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2018.1428056 |x Resolving-System |3 Volltext |
| 936 | u | w | |d 24 |j 2018 |e 3 |h 334-351 |
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| ELC | |a 1 | ||
| LOK | |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 | ||
| LOK | |0 001 3783516536 | ||
| LOK | |0 003 DE-627 | ||
| LOK | |0 004 1736088130 | ||
| LOK | |0 005 20201021110738 | ||
| LOK | |0 008 201021||||||||||||||||ger||||||| | ||
| LOK | |0 040 |a DE-21-110 |c DE-627 |d DE-21-110 | ||
| LOK | |0 092 |o n | ||
| LOK | |0 852 |a DE-21-110 | ||
| LOK | |0 852 1 |9 00 | ||
| LOK | |0 935 |a krub |a krzo | ||
| ORI | |a SA-MARC-krimdoka001.raw | ||