ReviewFrontiers in psychology2019
Criminal Responsibility and Neuroscience: No Revolution Yet.
Review in Frontiers in psychology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Neuroscience informed risk assessment and management in forensic mental healthcare: a qualitative analysis of ethical and legal challenges and practice-oriented recommendations.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Rewriting the crime divide: how executive functions and social cognition processes challenge violence classifications in the Colombian prison population.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- The reliability of assistance systems modulates the sense of control and acceptability of human operators.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- What is new with Artificial Intelligence? Human-agent interactions through the lens of social agency.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Review
- Neurorights vs. neuroprediction and lie detection: The imperative limits to criminal law.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- Translational Application of a Neuro-Scientific Multi-Modal Approach Into Forensic Psychiatric Evaluation: Why and How?Frontiers in psychiatry · 2021Article
- Real Neurolaw in the Netherlands: The Role of the Developing Brain in the New Adolescent Criminal Law.Frontiers in psychology · 2020Article
- Re-wiring Guilt: How Advancing Neuroscience Encourages Strategic Interventions Over Retributive Justice.Frontiers in psychology · 2020Review
- Under-Interpretation of Neuroimaging Data in Insanity Assessment: A Hidden Risk.Behavioral sciences & the lawArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Since the 1990's, neurolaw is on the rise. At the heart of heated debates lies the recurrent theme of a neuro-revolution of criminal responsibility. However, caution should be observed: the alleged foundations of criminal responsibility (amongst which free will) are often inaccurate and the relative imperviousness of its real foundations to scientific facts often underestimated. Neuroscientific findings may impact on social institutions, but only insofar as they also engage in a political justification of the changes being called for, convince populations, and take into consideration the ensuing consequences. Moreover, the many limits of neuroscientific tools call for increased vigilance when, if ever, using neuroscientific evidence in a courtroom. In this article, we aim at setting the basis for future sound debates on the contribution of neuroscience to criminal law, and in particular to the assessment of criminal responsibility. As such, we provide analytical tools to grasp the political and normative nature of criminal responsibility and review the current or projected use of neuroscience in the law, all the while bearing in mind the highly publicized question: can neuroscience revolutionize criminal responsibility? Answering this question implicitly requires answering a second question:
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.