Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2550918502> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 71 of
71
with 100 items per page.
- W2550918502 abstract "Much of the public debate surrounding the intersection of neuroscience and criminal law is based on assumptions about how prosecutors and defense attorneys differ in their use of neuroscience evidence. According to some, the defense’s use of neuroscience evidence will abdicate criminals of all responsibility, while the prosecution’s use of that same evidence will unfairly punish the most vulnerable defendants as unfixable future dangers to society. This “double-edged sword” view of neuroscience evidence demonstrates the concern that the same information about the defendant can either be mitigating or aggravating depending on who is raising it. Yet empirical assessments of legal decisions reveal a far more nuanced reality, showing that the public beliefs about the impact of neuroscience on the criminal law can often be wrong. This Article examines how courts respond to neuroscience evidence in capital cases when the defense presents it to argue that the defendant’s mental state at the time of the crime was below the given legal requisite due to some neurologic or cognitive deficiency. Relying on data from my “Neuroscience Study” (which consists of all criminal law cases that addressed neuroscience evidence from 1992–2012), I examine thirty-nine capital cases in which the defense attempted to use neuroscience evidence to dismiss or diminish the defendant’s level of intent either at the guilt phase or the penalty phase, along with a corresponding rebuttal or counterargument from the prosecution. I use a range of case examples to show how courts’ differing perspectives on what constitutes mitigating and aggravating evidence suggests that the “double-edged sword” framework is simplistic and, at times, misleading. This Article concludes that the lack of consistency and guidance among lower mens rea cases seemingly hinders a more effective application of neuroscience evidence in intent determinations. To remedy this problem, this Article endorses the “reasonable jurist” framework, which recognizes the value of case-by-case determinations and provides courts with a more realistic lens through which to assess the great variety of neuroscience factors." @default.
- W2550918502 created "2016-11-30" @default.
- W2550918502 creator A5027155313 @default.
- W2550918502 date "2016-11-01" @default.
- W2550918502 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
- W2550918502 title "How Prosecutors and Defense Attorneys Differ in Their Use of Neuroscience Evidence" @default.
- W2550918502 hasPublicationYear "2016" @default.
- W2550918502 type Work @default.
- W2550918502 sameAs 2550918502 @default.
- W2550918502 citedByCount "0" @default.
- W2550918502 crossrefType "posted-content" @default.
- W2550918502 hasAuthorship W2550918502A5027155313 @default.
- W2550918502 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
- W2550918502 hasConcept C113480226 @default.
- W2550918502 hasConcept C124056412 @default.
- W2550918502 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
- W2550918502 hasConcept C152588399 @default.
- W2550918502 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
- W2550918502 hasConcept C169760540 @default.
- W2550918502 hasConcept C169900460 @default.
- W2550918502 hasConcept C170320452 @default.
- W2550918502 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
- W2550918502 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
- W2550918502 hasConcept C202565627 @default.
- W2550918502 hasConcept C2777310092 @default.
- W2550918502 hasConcept C39394508 @default.
- W2550918502 hasConcept C73484699 @default.
- W2550918502 hasConcept C86658582 @default.
- W2550918502 hasConceptScore W2550918502C111472728 @default.
- W2550918502 hasConceptScore W2550918502C113480226 @default.
- W2550918502 hasConceptScore W2550918502C124056412 @default.
- W2550918502 hasConceptScore W2550918502C138885662 @default.
- W2550918502 hasConceptScore W2550918502C152588399 @default.
- W2550918502 hasConceptScore W2550918502C15744967 @default.
- W2550918502 hasConceptScore W2550918502C169760540 @default.
- W2550918502 hasConceptScore W2550918502C169900460 @default.
- W2550918502 hasConceptScore W2550918502C170320452 @default.
- W2550918502 hasConceptScore W2550918502C17744445 @default.
- W2550918502 hasConceptScore W2550918502C199539241 @default.
- W2550918502 hasConceptScore W2550918502C202565627 @default.
- W2550918502 hasConceptScore W2550918502C2777310092 @default.
- W2550918502 hasConceptScore W2550918502C39394508 @default.
- W2550918502 hasConceptScore W2550918502C73484699 @default.
- W2550918502 hasConceptScore W2550918502C86658582 @default.
- W2550918502 hasLocation W25509185021 @default.
- W2550918502 hasOpenAccess W2550918502 @default.
- W2550918502 hasPrimaryLocation W25509185021 @default.
- W2550918502 hasRelatedWork W1174773973 @default.
- W2550918502 hasRelatedWork W1509873622 @default.
- W2550918502 hasRelatedWork W1686602738 @default.
- W2550918502 hasRelatedWork W180580282 @default.
- W2550918502 hasRelatedWork W186402575 @default.
- W2550918502 hasRelatedWork W2263190328 @default.
- W2550918502 hasRelatedWork W23770637 @default.
- W2550918502 hasRelatedWork W2420071997 @default.
- W2550918502 hasRelatedWork W254245230 @default.
- W2550918502 hasRelatedWork W3023128514 @default.
- W2550918502 hasRelatedWork W3121591588 @default.
- W2550918502 hasRelatedWork W3121877356 @default.
- W2550918502 hasRelatedWork W3122213241 @default.
- W2550918502 hasRelatedWork W3123814926 @default.
- W2550918502 hasRelatedWork W3124161411 @default.
- W2550918502 hasRelatedWork W3124769991 @default.
- W2550918502 hasRelatedWork W3125166737 @default.
- W2550918502 hasRelatedWork W776901071 @default.
- W2550918502 hasRelatedWork W185442290 @default.
- W2550918502 hasRelatedWork W2163871353 @default.
- W2550918502 isParatext "false" @default.
- W2550918502 isRetracted "false" @default.
- W2550918502 magId "2550918502" @default.
- W2550918502 workType "article" @default.