Law and neuroscience

Journal of Neuroscience

Volumn 33, Issue 45, 2013, Pages 17624-17630

  Jones, Owen D ^a,b   Marois, René ^a   Farah, Martha J ^c   Greely, Henry T ^d  

^a VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Law and Neuroscience   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^d STANFORD LAW SCHOOL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALZHEIMER DISEASE; AMYGDALOID NUCLEUS; ARTICLE; CRIMINAL JUSTICE; DECISION MAKING; FUNCTIONAL MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; HIRSUTISM; HUMAN; IMPULSE CONTROL DISORDER; LAW; LAW SUIT; NEUROSCIENCE; PARKINSON DISEASE; PREFRONTAL CORTEX; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SCHIZOPHRENIA;

CRIMINAL LAW; HUMANS; NEUROSCIENCES;

EID: 84887072327     PISSN: 02706474     EISSN: 15292401     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3254-13.2013     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Aharoni E, Vincent GM, Harenski CL, Calhoun VD, Sinnott-Armstrong W, Gazzaniga MS, Kiehl KA (2012) Neuroprediction of future rearrest. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 110:6223-6228. CrossRef Medline
2. American Association for the Advancement of Science. http://www.aaas.org/
3. Brown T, Murphy E (2010) Through a scanner darkly: functional neuroimaging as evidence of a criminal defendant's past mental states. Stanford L Rev 62:1119-1208.
4. Buckholtz JW, Marois R (2012) The roots of modern justice: cognitive and neural foundations of social norms and their enforcement. Nat Neurosci 15:655-661. CrossRef Medline
5. Buckholtz JW, Asplund CL, Dux PE, Zald DH, Gore JC, Jones OD, Marois R (2008) The neural correlates of third-party punishment. Neuron 60: 930-940. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id_1715509 CrossRef Medline
6. Center for Neuroscience and Society, University of Pennsylvania. http://neuroethics.upenn.edu/
7. Danziger S, Levav J, Avnaim-Pesso L (2011) Extraneous factors in judicial decisions. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 108:6889-6892. CrossRef Medline
8. Davis K (2012) Brain trials: neuroscience is taking a stand in the courtroom. ABA J 98:36-37.
9. Farah MJ (2012) Neuroethics: the ethical, legal and societal impact of neuroscience. Annu Rev Psychol 63:571-591. CrossRef Medline
10. Farahany N (2012a) Incriminating thoughts. Stanford L Rev 64:351-408.
11. Farahany N (2012b) Searching secrets. Penn L Rev 160:1239-1308. Florida v. George Zimmerman. No. 12-CF-1083-A (18th Fla. Cir. Ct., 13 July 2013). Florida v. Grady Nelson. No. F05-00846 (11th Fla. Cir. Ct., 4 Dec 2010).
12. Freeman M, Goodenough OR, eds (2009) Law, mind, and brain. Farnham, UK: Ashgate.
13. Garland B (2004) Neuroscience and the law: brain, mind, and the scales of justice. Washington, D.C.: Dana.
14. Gazzaniga MS (2008) The law and neuroscience. Neuron 60:412-415. CrossRef Medline
15. Gold JI, Shadlen MN (2001) Neural computations that underlie decisions about sensory stimuli. Trends Cogn Sci 5:10-16. CrossRef Medline
16. Greely HT (2008) Neuroscience and criminal justice: not responsibility but treatment. Univ Kans L Rev 56:1103-1138.
17. Greely HT (2009) Law and the revolution in neuroscience: an early look at the field. Akron L Rev 42:687-715.
18. Greely HT, Wagner AD (2011) Neuroscience, reference guide on neuroscience, reference manual on scientific evidence, pp 747-812. Washington, D.C. Federal Judicial Center and National Academies.
19. Greely H, Sahakian B, Harris J, Kessler RC, Gazzaniga M, Campbell P, Farah MJ (2008) Towards responsible use of cognitive-enhancing drugs by the healthy. Nature 456:702-705. CrossRef Medline
20. Greene J, Cohen J (2004) For the law, neuroscience changes nothing and everything. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 359:1775-1785. CrossRef Medline
21. Greene JD, Sommerville RB, Nystrom LE, Darley JM, Cohen JD (2001) An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment. Science 293:2105-2108. CrossRef Medline
22. Gruter Institute for Law and Behavioral Research. http://www.gruterinstitute.org/Home.html
23. Hughes V (2010) Science in court: head case. Nature 464:340-342. CrossRef Medline
24. Initiative on Neuroscience and the Law, Baylor College of Medicine. http://www.neulaw.org/
25. Jones OD (2013) Seven ways neuroscience aids law. In: Neurosciences and the human person: new perspectives on human activities (Battro A, Dehaene S, Singer W, eds), Scripta Varia 121. Vatican City: Pontifical Academy of Sciences. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_ id_2280500
26. Jones OD, Shen FX (2012) Law and neuroscience in the United States: international neurolaw (Spranger T, ed). New York: Springer. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id_2001085
27. Jones OD, Schall JD, Shen FX (2013a) Law and neuroscience. In press. New York: Aspen.
28. Jones OD, Wagner AD, Faigman DL, Raichle ME (2013b) Neuroscientists in court. Nat Rev Neurosci 14:730-736. CrossRef Medline
29. Kliemann D, Young L, Scholz J, Saxe R (2008) The influence of prior record on moral judgment. Neuropsychologia 46:2949-2957. CrossRef Medline
30. Knoch D, Pascual-Leone A, Meyer K, Treyer V, Fehr E (2006) Diminishing reciprocal fairness by disrupting the right prefrontal cortex. Science 314: 829-832 CrossRef Medline
31. Kolber AJ (2007) Pain detection and the privacy of subjective experience. Am J L Med 33:433-456. Law and Neuroscience at Vanderbilt University. http://www.vanderbilt.edu/neurolaw/
32. Lee D (2013) Decision making: from neuroscience to psychiatry. Neuron 78:233-248. CrossRef Medline
33. Legrenzi P, Umilta C, Anderson F (2011) Neuromania: on the limits of brain science. Oxford: Oxford UP. MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Law and Neuroscience. Bibliography of law and neuroscience. http://www.lawneuro.org/bibliography.php
34. Mackintosh N (2011) Brain waves 4: neuroscience and the law. London, UK: Royal Society.
35. Mayberg HS (2010) Does neuroscience give us new insights into criminal responsibility? In: A judge's guide to neuroscience, pp 37-41. Santa Barbara, CA: SAGE Center for the Study of the Mind.
36. Meixner JB, Rosenfeld JP (2011) A mock terrorism application of the P300-based concealed information test. Psychophysiology 48:149-154. CrossRef
37. Miller G (2010) Brain exam may have swayed jury in sentencing convicted murderer. Science (14 Dec 2010). http://news.sciencemag.org/technology/2010/12/brain-exam-may-have-swayed-jury-sentencing-convicted-murderer Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. (forthcoming 2012).
38. Moll J, Zahn R, de Oliveira-Souza R, Krueger F, Grafman J (2005) Opinion: the neural basis of human moral cognition. Nat Rev Neurosci 6:799-809. CrossRef Medline
39. Morse SJ (2006) Brain overclaim syndrome and criminal responsibility: a diagnostic note. Ohio St J Crim L 3:397-412. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id_896753
40. Morse SJ (2010) Lost in translation? An essay on law and neuroscience. In: Law and neuroscience: current legal issues (Freeman M, ed). Oxford: Oxford P. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id_1904488
41. Morse SJ (2011) Avoiding irrational neurolaw exuberance: a plea for neuromodesty. Mercer L Rev 62:837-859.
42. Morse SJ, Roskies AL, eds. (2013) A primer on criminal law and neuroscience. Oxford: Oxford P. Neuroscience and Public Policy at University of Wisconsin, Madison. http://npp.wisc.edu/ New York v. Herbert Weinstein. No. 156 Misc.2d 34 (591 N.Y.S.2d 715, 1992).
43. Pardo MS, PattersonD (2010) Philosophical foundations of law and neuroscience. Ill L Rev 2010:1211-1250.
44. Patel P, Meltzer CC, Mayberg HS, Levine K (2007) The role of imaging in United States courtrooms. Neuroimaging Clin North Am 17:557-567. CrossRef Medline
45. Penn Neuroscience Boot Camp, University of Pennsylvania. http://neuroethics.upenn.edu/index.php/events/neuroscience-bootcamp
46. Pustilnik AC (2009) Violence on the brain: a critique of neuroscience in criminal law. Wake Forest L Rev 44:183-237.
47. Sanfey AG, Rilling JK, Aronson JA, Nystrom LE, Cohen JD (2003) The neural basis of economic decision-making in the ultimatum game. Science 300:1755-1758. CrossRef Medline
48. Sapolsky RM (2004) The frontal cortex and the criminal justice system. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 359:1787-1796.
49. CrossRef Medline
50. Satel S, Lilienfeld SO (2013) Brainwashed: the seductive appeal of mindless neuroscience. New York: Basic.
51. Schall JD (2001) Neural basis of deciding, choosing and acting. Nat Rev Neurosci 2:33-42. CrossRef Medline
52. Schleim S, Spranger TM, Erk S, Walter H (2011) From moral to legal judgment: the influence of normative context in lawyers and other academics. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci 6:48-57. CrossRef Medline
53. Shen FX, Jones OD (2011) Brain scans as evidence: truth, proofs, lies, and lessons. Mercer L Rev 62:861-883. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id_1736288
54. Spranger T, ed (2011) International neurolaw. New York: Springer. United States of America v. Lorne Allan Semrau. 07-10074 (2010) Opinion by Judge Pham (June 1, 2010: http://www.tnwd.uscourts.gov/JudgePham/opinions/659.pdf
55. Wagner A (2010) Can neuroscience identify lies? In: A judge's guide to neuroscience: a concise introduction. Santa Barbara, CA: SAGE Center for the Study of the Mind.
56. Zeki S, Goodenough OR, eds (2006) Law and the brain. Oxford, UK: Oxford UP.