Show simple item record

Neuroscientists in Court

dc.contributor.authorJones, Owen D.
dc.contributor.authorWagner, Anthony D.
dc.contributor.authorFaigman, David L.
dc.contributor.authorRaichle, Marcus E.
dc.date.accessioned2022-05-05T18:43:28Z
dc.date.available2022-05-05T18:43:28Z
dc.date.issued2014
dc.identifier.citation14 Nature Reviews Neuroscience 730 (2013)en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1803/17262
dc.descriptionarticle published in a journal of neuroscienceen_US
dc.description.abstractNeuroscientific evidence is increasingly being offered in court cases. Consequently, the legal system needs neuroscientists to act as expert witnesses who can explain the limitations and interpretations of neuroscientific findings so that judges and jurors can make informed and appropriate inferences. The growing role of neuroscientists in court means that neuroscientists should be aware of important differences between the scientific and legal fields, and, especially, how scientific facts can be easily misunderstood by non-scientists,including judges and jurors. This article describes similarities, as well as key differences, of legal and scientific cultures. And it explains six key principles about neuroscience that those in law need to know.en_US
dc.format.extent7 pagesen_US
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.publisherNature Reviews Neuroscienceen_US
dc.subjectlaw and neuroscienceen_US
dc.subjectpsychologyen_US
dc.subjectneurolawen_US
dc.subjectcriminal responsibilityen_US
dc.subjecttort liabilityen_US
dc.subjectevidenceen_US
dc.subjectpunishmenten_US
dc.subjectsentencingen_US
dc.subject.lcshlawen_US
dc.subject.lcshcourtsen_US
dc.subject.lcshcriminal lawen_US
dc.subject.lcshevidenceen_US
dc.subject.lcshneuroscience and neurobiologyen_US
dc.titleNeuroscientists in Courten_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.ssrn-urihttps://ssrn.com/abstract=2432469


Files in this item

Icon

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record