Search
Now showing items 1-6 of 6
Neuroscientists in Court
(Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2014)
Neuroscientific 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 ...
Parsing the Behavioral and Brain Mechanisms of Third-Party Punishment
(The Journal of Neuroscience, 2016)
The evolved capacity for third-party punishment is considered crucial to the emergence and maintenance of elaborate human social organization and is central to the modern provision of fairness and justice within society. ...
Intuitions of Punishment
(University of Chicago Law Review, 2010)
Recent work reveals, contrary to wide-spread assumptions, remarkably high levels of agreement about how to rank order, by blameworthiness, wrongs that involve physical harms, takings of property, or deception in exchanges. ...
Sorting Guilty Minds
(New York University Law Review, 2011)
Because punishable guilt requires that bad thoughts accompany bad acts, the Model Penal Code (MPC) typically requires that jurors infer the past mental state of a criminal defendant. More specifically, jurors must sort ...
Decoding Guilty Minds: How Jurors Attribute Knowledge and Guilt
(Vanderbilt Law Review, 2018)
A central tenet of Anglo-American penal law is that in order for an actor to be found criminally liable, a proscribed act must be accompanied by a guilty mind. While it is easy to understand the importance of this principle ...
The Neural Correlates of Third-Party Punishment
(Neuron, 2008-12)
This article reports the discovery, from the first full-scale law and neuroscience experiment, of the brain activity underlying punishment decisions.
We used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to measure brain ...