Neuroscience and Legal Responsibility
Adopting a broadly compatibilist approach, this volume's authors argue that the behavioral and mind sciences do not threaten the moral foundations of legal responsibility. Rather, these sciences provide fresh insight into human agency and updated criteria as well as powerful diagnostic and intervention tools for assessing and altering minds.
Was andere dazu sagen - Rezension schreiben
Es wurden keine Rezensionen gefunden.
Andere Ausgaben - Alle anzeigen
actions addiction treatment amygdala argue argument assessments awareness thesis behavior beliefs Bias Research blame brain capacity-responsibility causal caused claim coerced cognitive enhancement compatibilism compatibilist concepts concerning conscious context crime criminal law criminal responsibility criteria culpability Dawkins decision defendant determine discussion disease model drug courts effects Ethics evaluative example excuse expect fact folk psychology function harm Heyman human implicit attitudes individuals insanity insanity defense Journal judgments justified law’s legal responsibility manipulated agents mens rea mental capacity mental disease mental illness mind Model Penal Code moral responsibility Morse naïve realism naltrexone neural Neuroethics neuroimaging neuroscience neuroscientific neuroscientific evidence neuroscientific findings norms objective offenders ofthe one’s opioid Oxford University Press patients pedophilia pedophilic perspective philosophical practices principle processes Psychiatry psychological psychopathy punishment question rationality reasonable person standard regard relevant responsibility tracks role sense sexual Sinnott-Armstrong social theoretical theory tion understanding Vincent voluntary