Add to ORKGThis chapter suggests that for conceptual, empirical, and practical reasons, neuroscience in general and non-invasive brain imaging in particular are not likely to revolutionize the law and our conception of ourselves, but may make modest contributions to legal policy and case adjudication if the legal relevance of the science is properly understood
In a 2002 editorial published in The Economist, the following warning was given: Genetics may yet t...
According to a wide variety of scholars, scientists, and policymakers, neuroscience promises to tran...
In a 2002 editorial published in The Economist, the following warning was given: “Genetics may yet t...
This chapter suggests that for conceptual, empirical, and practical reasons, neuroscience in general...
Neuroimaging evidence should be restricted in terms of admissibility in the courts, and should only ...
This chapter suggests on conceptual and empirical grounds that at present neuroscience does not have...
Legislators, jurists, and advocates often turn to science to solve complicated normative problems ad...
Despite a large and growing interest in applying brain science to the ends of justice, the implicati...
This chapter addresses the potential contributions of neuroscience to legal policy in general and cr...
This chapter discusses whether the findings of the new neuroscience based largely on functional brai...
In recent years there has been increasing interest in the relation of neuroscience and the law. Far ...
This chapter considers the claims made on behalf of neuroscience in three areas: legal philosophy, e...
Claims for the relevance and importance of neuroscience for law are stronger than ever. Notwithstand...
This article addresses new developments in neuroscience, and their implications for law. It explores...
In the contemporary debate on the use of the neurosciences in ethics and law, numerous arguments hav...
In a 2002 editorial published in The Economist, the following warning was given: Genetics may yet t...
According to a wide variety of scholars, scientists, and policymakers, neuroscience promises to tran...
In a 2002 editorial published in The Economist, the following warning was given: “Genetics may yet t...
This chapter suggests that for conceptual, empirical, and practical reasons, neuroscience in general...
Neuroimaging evidence should be restricted in terms of admissibility in the courts, and should only ...
This chapter suggests on conceptual and empirical grounds that at present neuroscience does not have...
Legislators, jurists, and advocates often turn to science to solve complicated normative problems ad...
Despite a large and growing interest in applying brain science to the ends of justice, the implicati...
This chapter addresses the potential contributions of neuroscience to legal policy in general and cr...
This chapter discusses whether the findings of the new neuroscience based largely on functional brai...
In recent years there has been increasing interest in the relation of neuroscience and the law. Far ...
This chapter considers the claims made on behalf of neuroscience in three areas: legal philosophy, e...
Claims for the relevance and importance of neuroscience for law are stronger than ever. Notwithstand...
This article addresses new developments in neuroscience, and their implications for law. It explores...
In the contemporary debate on the use of the neurosciences in ethics and law, numerous arguments hav...
In a 2002 editorial published in The Economist, the following warning was given: Genetics may yet t...
According to a wide variety of scholars, scientists, and policymakers, neuroscience promises to tran...
In a 2002 editorial published in The Economist, the following warning was given: “Genetics may yet t...