Switch to: References

Citations of:

Philosophical Foundations of Law and Neuroscience

Dennis Michael Patterson & Michael S. Pardo (eds.)

Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press UK (2016)

Add citations

You must login to add citations.

Neurolaw and Direct Brain Interventions.Nicole A. Vincent - 2014 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 8 (1):43-50.details This issue of Criminal Law and Philosophy contains three papers on a topic of increasing importance within the field of "neurolaw"-namely, the implications for criminal law of direct brain intervention based mind altering techniques. To locate these papers' topic within a broader context, I begin with an overview of some prominent topics in the field of neurolaw, where possible providing some references to relevant literature. The specific questions asked by the three authors, as well as their answers and central claims, (...) Download Export citation Bookmark 3 citations
Minds, Brains, and Desert: On the relevance of neuroscience for retributive punishment.Alva Stråge - 2019 - Dissertation, University of Gothenburgdetails It is a common idea, and an element in many legal systems, that people can deserve punishment when they commit criminal (or immoral) actions. A standard philosophical objection to this retributivist idea about punishment is that if human choices and actions are determined by previous events and the laws of nature, then we are not free in the sense required to be morally responsible for our actions, and therefore cannot deserve blame or punishment. It has recently been suggested that this (...) Download Export citation Bookmark
Neural Lie Detection, Criterial Change, and OrdinaryLanguage.Thomas Nadelhoffer - 2010 - Neuroethics 4 (3):205-213.details Michael Pardo and Dennis Patterson have recently put forward several provocative and stimulating criticisms that strike at the heart of much work that has been done at the crossroads of neuroscience and the law. My goal in this essay is to argue that their criticisms of the nascent but growing field of neurolaw are ultimately based on questionable assumptions concerning the nature of the ever evolving relationship between scientific discovery and ordinary language. For while the marriage between ordinary language and (...) Download Export citation Bookmark 1 citation
More on the Conceptual and the Empirical: Misunderstandings, Clarifications, and Replies. [REVIEW]Michael S. Pardo & Dennis Patterson - 2010 - Neuroethics 4 (3):215-222.details At the invitation of the Editors, we wrote an article (entitled, “Minds, Brains, and Norms”) detailing our views on a variety of claims by those arguing for the explanatory power of neuroscience in matters of law and ethics. The Editors invited comments on our article from four distinguished academics (Walter Glannon, Carl Craver, Sarah Robins, and Thomas Nadelhoffer) and invited our reply to their critique of our views. In this reply to our commentators, we correct some potential misunderstandings of our (...) Download Export citation Bookmark
The Ethical Implications of Considering Neurolaw as a New Power.Daniel Pallarés-Dominguez & Elsa González Esteban - 2016 - Ethics and Behavior 26 (3):252-266.details Caution is one of the orienting principles of neuroscience’s advance in different social spheres. This article shows the importance of maintaining caution in the area of neurolaw because of its risk of becoming a new power that is free from ethical discussion. The article’s objective is to note the principal ethical implications and limitations of neurolaw in light of six cases in which neuroscientific evidence was used in distinct ways. This study seeks to examine the precautions that should be taken (...) Download Export citation Bookmark 1 citation

1