Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Responsibility, dysfunction and capacity.Nicole A. Vincent - 2008 - Neuroethics 1 (3):199-204.
    The way in which we characterize the structural and functional differences between psychopath and normal brains – either as biological disorders or as mere biological differences – can influence our judgments about psychopaths’ responsibility for criminal misconduct. However, Marga Reimer (Neuroethics 1(2):14, 2008) points out that whether our characterization of these differences should be allowed to affect our judgments in this manner “is a difficult and important question that really needs to be addressed before policies regarding responsibility... can be implemented (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations  
  • Neuroimaging and Responsibility Assessments.Nicole A. Vincent - 2011 - Neuroethics 4 (1):35-49.
    Could neuroimaging evidence help us to assess the degree of a person’s responsibility for a crime which we know that they committed? This essay defends an affirmative answer to this question. A range of standard objections to this high-tech approach to assessing people’s responsibility is considered and then set aside, but I also bring to light and then reject a novel objection—an objection which is only encountered when functional (rather than structural) neuroimaging is used to assess people’s responsibility.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations