Forensic neuropsychology in the criminal court: A socio-legal perspective

TY - CHAP

T1 - Forensic neuropsychology in the criminal court: A socio-legal perspective

AU - McRae, Leon Matthew

PY - 2016

Y1 - 2016

N2 - As a result of greater understanding of the relationship between the brain and antisocial behaviour, neuropsychological evidence is slowly helping courts assign criminal responsibility. Nevertheless, advocates of the neuropsychological approach often express concern that the law fails to adequately recognise individual vulnerabilities. It is remarkable, then, that lawyers have been largely silent on the implications of speaking brain science to law. This chapter begins to address the void by looking at three areas of especial concern to neuropsychologists: the appropriate age of criminal responsibility, the (ir-) responsibility of psychopaths and whether vulnerable defendants declared fit to stand trial require greater protection. Two main arguments are advanced. First, the complex relationship between certain brain states and behaviour, as depicted in emergent, and sometimes contradictory evidence, may undermine its potential application in the courtroom. Second, even where neuropsychological research linking certain brain states to antisocial acts is strong, evidential assumptions about irresponsibility may be rejected. To exculpate certain defendants, it will be argued, would oppose the usefulness of the criminal law in reducing the perceived sites of ‘risk’. It would also undermine the scope of the criminal law to shape public morality according to socially constructed notions of normal and abnormal violence. These limitations are most evident in legal responses to antisocial children and criminal psychopaths.

AB - As a result of greater understanding of the relationship between the brain and antisocial behaviour, neuropsychological evidence is slowly helping courts assign criminal responsibility. Nevertheless, advocates of the neuropsychological approach often express concern that the law fails to adequately recognise individual vulnerabilities. It is remarkable, then, that lawyers have been largely silent on the implications of speaking brain science to law. This chapter begins to address the void by looking at three areas of especial concern to neuropsychologists: the appropriate age of criminal responsibility, the (ir-) responsibility of psychopaths and whether vulnerable defendants declared fit to stand trial require greater protection. Two main arguments are advanced. First, the complex relationship between certain brain states and behaviour, as depicted in emergent, and sometimes contradictory evidence, may undermine its potential application in the courtroom. Second, even where neuropsychological research linking certain brain states to antisocial acts is strong, evidential assumptions about irresponsibility may be rejected. To exculpate certain defendants, it will be argued, would oppose the usefulness of the criminal law in reducing the perceived sites of ‘risk’. It would also undermine the scope of the criminal law to shape public morality according to socially constructed notions of normal and abnormal violence. These limitations are most evident in legal responses to antisocial children and criminal psychopaths.

M3 - Chapter

SP - 14,000 words

BT - Wiley Handbook of Neuropsychology

PB - WILEY-BLACKWELL

ER -