File #2867: "2020_Book_NeuroscienceAndLaw.pdf"
Text
1|Foreword|6
2|Neuroscience, Today|6
1|Contents|11
1|Law Challenged. Reasoning About Neuroscience and Law|14
2|1 Neurolaw: An Introduction to a New Path|14
2|2 From Descartes´ Error to Natural Partnership Between Neuroscience and Law|15
2|3 Phases of the Neurolaw Before the Name|19
2|4 The Multiple Intersections Between Neuroscience and Law|20
3|4.1 Neuroscience and `How Judges Think´|22
3|4.2 Constitutional Meanings of Integration Between Neuroscience and Law|23
2|5 Neuroscience and Criminal Responsibility: Avoid Easy Reductionism|24
3|5.1 The Free Will and the Libet Experiments. For a Cautious and Reasonable Approach|26
3|5.2 Neuroscience and Penal Sanctions. The Decisions of the US Supreme Court on the Death Penalty for Mental Patients and Minors|29
2|6 Brain Damages or Dysfunctions and Criminal Responsibility|31
2|7 Other Applications of Neuroscience Techniques in a Criminal Trial|33
2|8 Neuroscience Beyond the Courts. Opportunities and Problems of Brain Computer Interfaces and Human Brain Surrogates|37
2|9 (Neuro) Enhancement and Ethical (and Social) Risks|39
2|10 An Excursion Around the Edges Between Neuroscience and Law. Mirror Neurons and the Social Relations of Man. Final Considera...|44
2|References|45
1|Part I: Neuroscience and Law: Introductory Reflections|50
2|A Wider Scope for Neuroscience and Law|51
3|1 Neuroscience, Artificial Intelligence and Robots|51
3|2 Artificial Intelligence and Robots|52
4|2.1 About Robots|53
4|2.2 Robots That Move and Animals (Roomba and Scooba)|54
4|2.3 Robots That Learn and Grow Up (iCUB and Nao)|55
3|3 Humans and Machines|58
3|4 Brain and Individual Boundaries|58
3|References|60
2|Why Neuroscience Matters for Law|62
3|1 Introduction|62
3|2 Fixing Neurolaw in the Landscape of Jurisprudence|64
4|2.1 Viewing Law as an Applied Science|64
4|2.2 Fostering Productive Legal Change|65
3|3 What Neuroscience Adds to Psychology|66
4|3.1 Neuroscience Has Enriched Psychology|66
4|3.2 Getting ``Under the Hood´´|67
3|4 The Neuro/Law Combination|68
4|4.1 Domains of Neurolaw|68
4|4.2 How Has Neurolaw Performed?|70
4|4.3 Criminal Responsibility|73
4|4.4 Civil Capacity: A Better Target for Neurolaw?|74
3|5 Conclusions|76
3|References|76
2|``Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea´´. The Concept of Guilt in the Age of Cognitive Science|80
3|1 Modernity of an Old Maxim|80
3|2 Deviant Causal Chains|82
3|3 Epiphenomenalism|84
3|4 On the Old Maxim Again|87
3|References|89
2|Neuroscience and the ``Mute Law´´|91
3|1 Introduction|91
3|2 Latency of Mute Law|93
3|3 Still Some Clarifications on Mute Law|96
3|4 Neurosciences as a Tool for the ``Emergence´´ of Mute Law|98
3|References|102
2|Cognitive Liberty and Human Rights|105
3|1 Introduction|105
3|2 The Impact of Neuro-Technologies|106
4|2.1 Brain Imaging|107
4|2.2 Brain Stimulation|107
4|2.3 Brain Alterations|108
4|2.4 Cognitive Enhancement|109
3|3 Cognitive Liberty: The Pursuit of a Definition|110
4|3.1 Negative Formulation|110
4|3.2 Positive Formulation|113
3|4 Cognitive Liberty and Human Rights: Relationship in Progress|115
3|5 Conclusive Remarks|118
3|References|119
2|Some Reflections on Neuroscience and Civil Law|122
3|1 Neuroscience and Current Civil Law|122
3|2 The Discovery of Mirror-Neurons and the Use of Neuromarketing in Bargaining|127
3|3 Neuromarketing and Consent Protection|129
3|4 Interference Between Rules of Conduct and Validity Rules and Remedies in the Italian-European System|131
3|5 The Neurosciences, the Capacity and the Protection of the Human Person|134
3|References|139
2|Empowering Negotiating Skills in Law Professionals: Neuro-Cognitive Applications|147
3|1 Lawyers and Negotiation|147
3|2 Available Tools|156
3|3 Conclusion|164
3|References|166
2|The `Mirror Rights´: Reflections on Law and Neuroscience Through the Lens of the Greek Tragedy|170
3|1 Methodical Introduction: The Virtuality of a Dissertation|171
3|2 ``The Birth of Mirror Neurons from the Spirit of Dance´´: From Nietzsche to Neuroscience|173
3|3 Conflicting Rights and the `Private Fear´: Aeschylus´ Agamemnon and The Libation Bearers|180
3|4 The Metamorphosis of Justice and `Ethical-Political Homeostasis´: Aeschylus´ The Eumenides|186
3|References|190
1|Part II: Neuroscience, Health Rights and Human Being: New Challenges|193
2|Neuroenhancement and Law|194
3|1 Human Enhancement: From Science-Fiction to Law. An Introduction|194
3|2 Neuroenhancement: What and How. Towards a Medicalization Process of Human Being?|196
3|3 Drawing the Line Between Therapy and Enhancement. A Study-Case: The Italian Health Care System|202
3|4 Neuroenhancement Between Innovation and Safety|205
3|5 Neuroenhancement and Social Justice Issues|208
3|6 Natural vs. Artificial: The Application of Enhancing Technologies in the Military Context|211
3|7 Conclusion: What Should the Law Do?|213
3|References|215
2|Self-Determination, Health and Equality: The Constitutional Protections for Cognitive Enhancement|220
3|1 Introduction|220
3|2 Constitutional Foundation of Cognitive Enhancement in Regard to Self-Determination and Health: A Contribution Involving Conf...|221
3|3 The Role of the Doctor with Regard to the Self-Determination and Health of the Non-Patient|226
3|4 Constitutional Limitations and Constraints on Cognitive Enhancement|228
4|4.1 Protection of the Health of Individuals Pending Reliable Scientific Data on the Safety of Cognitive Enhancers|229
4|4.2 Self-Determination Versus Hetero Conditioning|231
4|4.3 Self-Determination and Equality: Should Identity Conformity Be an Opportunity Available to All?|233
4|4.4 The Question of Equal Treatment for the Enhanced and the Unenhanced in Sports Competitions, Public Competitions, Examinati...|236
3|5 In Conclusion: Traditional Constitutional Protections for Scientific Innovations|239
3|References|241
2|When the `Age of Science and Technology´ Meets the `Age of Rights´. `Moral´ Bioenhancement as a Case Study|244
3|1 Introduction|245
3|2 The `Age of Rights´ Meets the `Age of Technology´|246
3|3 Making People Morally Better by Means of Technological Enhancement. The Project of `Moral´ Bioenhancement|248
3|4 `Moral´ Bioenhancement and the Search for Perfection: The Legal Problem with Selection of Traits and Respect for Legal Equal...|249
3|5 Some Specific Institutional and Legal Implications of the Project of `Moral´ Bioenhancement: The Categories´ Perspective|252
3|6 Some Brief Conclusive Remarks|258
3|References|259
2|An Epigenetic Pro-action for Moral Development|261
3|1 Introduction|261
3|2 Bio-enhancing Morality|262
3|3 Unconsidered Side Effects|265
3|4 Proactive Epigenesis|267
3|5 The Paramount Importance of Practice|268
3|6 The Qualitative Difference Between Methods|270
3|7 Conclusions|272
3|References|273
2|Brain Computer Interface and Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation in Legal Practice and Regulations|276
3|1 Introduction|276
3|2 BCI and Transcranial Stimulation: Features, State-of-the-Art and Applications|277
3|3 Potentialities and Threats|280
3|4 Specific Regulations and Lacks in Legal Protection of Individuals´ Rights|283
4|4.1 Individuals´ Rights Protection, Neurolaw and Legal Practice|283
4|4.2 Medical Regulations: The MDR|288
4|4.3 MiFID in Finance|289
3|5 Conclusion|290
3|References|290
2|Brain-Computer Interfaces and the Protection of the Fundamental Rights of the Vulnerable Persons|294
3|1 Introduction|294
3|2 The Italian Case-Law About the Non-BCI Communicative and Augmentative Interfaces|296
3|3 Applying the Italian Case-Law About the Non-BCI Communicative and Augmentative Interfaces to the BCI Systems|297
3|4 The Possible Constitutional Framework for the BCI. The Fundamental Rights Involved|300
3|5 The BCI and the EU Regulatory Framework Between ``Medical Devices´´ and ``Electronic Products´´|305
3|6 The Use of BCI and the Identification of a Possible ``Guarantor´´ for the Vulnerable Persons in the Actual Italian Legal Sys...|309
3|7 Conclusions (and a Proposal)|315
3|References|316
2|Ethical and Legal Issues in Deep Brain Stimulation: An Overview|321
3|1 Introduction|321
3|2 Development of the Technique|322
4|2.1 Intrication of Research and Treatment|323
4|2.2 Benefit/Risk Balance and Defining the Pathologies Concerned|325
4|2.3 Benefit/Risk Balance and Defining the Patients Concerned|326
4|2.4 A Renewal of Disciplinary Approaches and the Promotion of Interdisciplinarity|328
3|3 Effects of the Technique|329
4|3.1 Informing the Patient, Adapting the Treatment, and Involving the Family|329
4|3.2 Treatment Efficacy and Social Adjustment|330
4|3.3 Behavioral Disorders, Impact on Identity, and Legal Repercussions|332
4|3.4 Controlling the Device|333
3|4 Conclusion|334
3|References|335
2|Neuroscience and End-of-Life Decisions: What Kind of Coexistence?|340
3|1 Introduction|340
3|2 The Constitutional Foundation of Informed Consent in Italian Constitutional Court Case Law|341
4|2.1 The Recent Italian Law on Informed Consent and Advance Decisions of Medical Treatments in a Nutshell|343
4|2.2 Unresponsive Patients and End-of-Life Decisions: The Legal Principle Stemmed from the Englaro Case|347
4|2.3 From the Libertarian Approach to the Science-Based Approach|349
3|3 Neuroscience and the Capability of ``Reading Minds´´: New Challenges for the World of Law|353
4|3.1 Neuroscience as a Potential Harm to Fundamental Rights|354
4|3.2 Neuroscience as a Potential Ally of Fundamental Rights|355
3|4 Why Should We Resort to Neuroscience in End-of-Life Decisions?|356
4|4.1 The Role of Neuroscience in Surrogate Decision Making. Suggestions from the Case-Law|359
3|5 Free Will and Neuroscience: A Possible Coexistence?|362
3|6 Liberty, Neuroscience, and Law. The Subjective-Objective Dichotomy|363
3|7 A Matter of Balance and a Matter of Roles|367
3|References|368
2|The Dilemma of Human Brain Surrogates: Scientific Opportunities, Ethical Concerns|372
3|1 Introduction|372
3|2 New Brain Surrogate Technologies|374
4|2.1 Human/Non-human Brain Chimeras|374
4|2.2 Non-human Animals with Genetically ``Humanized´´ Brains|376
4|2.3 Human Neural Organoids|378
4|2.4 Ex Vivo Human Brain Tissue|379
4|2.5 Electronic Brain Simulations|382
3|3 Ethical Implications of Human Brain Surrogates|383
4|3.1 The Welfare of the Human Brain Surrogates|383
4|3.2 The Consent and Privacy of the ``Human Parts´´ of the Surrogates|384
4|3.3 Possible Non-research Implications of the Research|387
4|3.4 Possible Non-research Uses of the Surrogates|388
4|3.5 Humanization of Non-humans|389
4|3.6 The Rights of the Surrogates|390
4|3.7 The Role, and Rights, of Societies in Making Decisions About Human Brain Surrogates|392
3|4 Conclusion|395
3|References|395
1|Part III: Mind, Brain and the Courtroom: Opportunities and Controversial Implications|401
2|Neuroscientific Evidence and Criminal Trials|402
3|1 The Emergence of Science in the Trial|402
3|2 Neuroscientific Evidence: Vigilant Precaution|404
3|3 ``Atypical´´ Evidence?|405
3|4 Consent and Compulsory Checks|406
3|5 Full Possession of One´s Faculties (Insanity)|406
3|6 Mental Illness Assessment Limitations|408
3|7 Memory Detection|409
3|8 Neuroscientific Evidence, Self-determination and Personal Protection|411
3|References|412
2|Neuroscience and Law: Conceptual and Practical Issues|414
3|1 The Meaning of Criminal Responsibility|415
3|2 The Sources of Neuroexuberance|416
3|3 The Limits of Behavioral Neuroscience|419
3|4 The Radical Challenges of Neuroscience to Law|424
3|5 Legal Relevance|425
3|6 Neuroevidence in the Criminal Law Courtroom|430
3|7 The Case for Cautious Optimism|433
3|8 Conclusion|436
3|References|436
2|Neurobiological Correlates of Antisocial Human Behavior|440
3|1 The Exercise of Free Will|441
3|2 Bio-Psycho-Social Roots of Human Behavior|442
3|3 Are Psychopathic Criminals Bad or Mad?|446
3|4 Genetics and Behavior: Where Do We Stand?|447
3|5 Behavioral Control Under Sleep Deprivation|448
3|6 Conclusions|449
3|References|450
2|The Methodology of Forensic Neuroscience|452
3|1 Introduction|453
3|2 Brain Imaging in Court: Some Previous Cases|454
3|3 Brain Pathology and Diminished Responsibility|456
3|4 Case Report|461
4|4.1 Clinical and Neuro-Psychological Assessment|461
4|4.2 Brain Imaging Data|462
4|4.3 Re-Analysis of the MRI Data|463
5|4.3.1 Variant of Normality Number 1: The Arachnoid Cyst|463
5|4.3.2 Variant of Normality Number 2: The Empty Sella|464
5|4.3.3 Variant of Normality Number 3: Mega Cisterna Magna|465
5|4.3.4 Variant of Normality Number 4: Enlarged Periencephalic Spaces Around the Frontal and Parietal Lobe|465
4|4.4 Re-Interpretation of the Clinical Data Through the Re-Analysis of the MRI Data|467
4|4.5 Conclusion on This Case Report|468
3|5 Conclusion|469
3|References|470
2|(Neuro)Science and Criminal Trial. Between Scientific Epistemology and Judicial Epistemology|473
3|1 Scientific Evidence and Scientificity of the Evidence Between Judicia Dei and Neuroscience|473
3|2 The Scientific Epistemology|476
3|3 and the Judicial Epistemology|478
3|4 An Unstable Union. Italian History|480
3|5 and Not Only. The North American Experience|484
3|6 The Indications from the European Court of Human Rights|487
3|References|488
2|Tailor-Made Intentions: Legal Categories and (Neuro)Scientific Tools|495
3|1 Introduction|495
3|2 A New Tool|499
3|3 Looking into the Tool|500
3|4 Working with the Tool|502
3|5 Flaws|503
3|6 To Each Their Own|506
3|References|507
2|Moral Freedom and Neuroscientific Assessments: Constitutional Features|510
3|1 Research Setting: Neuroscience as a Contemporary Socratic Maieutic Method Applied to the Penal Process in Relation to Moral ...|510
3|2 The Scope of the ``Concept´´ of Moral Freedom|512
3|3 The Protection of Moral Freedom in the Constitution: The Guidelines of the Constitutional Court and of the Doctrine|513
3|4 The Protection of Moral Freedom at the Legislative Level with Reference to the Penal Process, the Relationship Between the `...|516
3|5 The Indirect Impact on Moral Freedom of the Principles of Nemo Tenetur Se Detegere and of the Dignity of the Human Person|520
3|6 An Attempt to Conclude|522
3|References|523
2|Another Perspective on ``Neurolaw´´: The Use of Brain Imaging in Civil Litigation Regarding Mental Competence|525
3|1 Introduction|525
3|2 Admitting Brain Images as Evidence|530
3|3 Evaluating the Persuasiveness of Brain Images|535
3|4 Conclusion|540
3|References|541
2|Social Neuroscience, Communication and Collective Behavior: Thinking About the Psychic Causation After L´Aquila Earthquake|544
3|1 Introduction|544
3|2 The Uncertain Epistemological Status of Psychic Causation in the L´Aquila Earthquake Trial: The Inadequacy of the ``Pure´´ N...|548
3|3 (Continued) The ``Unbearable Lightness´´ of the Maxims of Experience|553
3|4 Neurosciences, Disasters and Collective Behavior|555
3|5 Neuroscientific ``Laws´´ as ``Middle-Range Theories´´|559
3|References|562
2|Neuroscience, Today|6
1|Contents|11
1|Law Challenged. Reasoning About Neuroscience and Law|14
2|1 Neurolaw: An Introduction to a New Path|14
2|2 From Descartes´ Error to Natural Partnership Between Neuroscience and Law|15
2|3 Phases of the Neurolaw Before the Name|19
2|4 The Multiple Intersections Between Neuroscience and Law|20
3|4.1 Neuroscience and `How Judges Think´|22
3|4.2 Constitutional Meanings of Integration Between Neuroscience and Law|23
2|5 Neuroscience and Criminal Responsibility: Avoid Easy Reductionism|24
3|5.1 The Free Will and the Libet Experiments. For a Cautious and Reasonable Approach|26
3|5.2 Neuroscience and Penal Sanctions. The Decisions of the US Supreme Court on the Death Penalty for Mental Patients and Minors|29
2|6 Brain Damages or Dysfunctions and Criminal Responsibility|31
2|7 Other Applications of Neuroscience Techniques in a Criminal Trial|33
2|8 Neuroscience Beyond the Courts. Opportunities and Problems of Brain Computer Interfaces and Human Brain Surrogates|37
2|9 (Neuro) Enhancement and Ethical (and Social) Risks|39
2|10 An Excursion Around the Edges Between Neuroscience and Law. Mirror Neurons and the Social Relations of Man. Final Considera...|44
2|References|45
1|Part I: Neuroscience and Law: Introductory Reflections|50
2|A Wider Scope for Neuroscience and Law|51
3|1 Neuroscience, Artificial Intelligence and Robots|51
3|2 Artificial Intelligence and Robots|52
4|2.1 About Robots|53
4|2.2 Robots That Move and Animals (Roomba and Scooba)|54
4|2.3 Robots That Learn and Grow Up (iCUB and Nao)|55
3|3 Humans and Machines|58
3|4 Brain and Individual Boundaries|58
3|References|60
2|Why Neuroscience Matters for Law|62
3|1 Introduction|62
3|2 Fixing Neurolaw in the Landscape of Jurisprudence|64
4|2.1 Viewing Law as an Applied Science|64
4|2.2 Fostering Productive Legal Change|65
3|3 What Neuroscience Adds to Psychology|66
4|3.1 Neuroscience Has Enriched Psychology|66
4|3.2 Getting ``Under the Hood´´|67
3|4 The Neuro/Law Combination|68
4|4.1 Domains of Neurolaw|68
4|4.2 How Has Neurolaw Performed?|70
4|4.3 Criminal Responsibility|73
4|4.4 Civil Capacity: A Better Target for Neurolaw?|74
3|5 Conclusions|76
3|References|76
2|``Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea´´. The Concept of Guilt in the Age of Cognitive Science|80
3|1 Modernity of an Old Maxim|80
3|2 Deviant Causal Chains|82
3|3 Epiphenomenalism|84
3|4 On the Old Maxim Again|87
3|References|89
2|Neuroscience and the ``Mute Law´´|91
3|1 Introduction|91
3|2 Latency of Mute Law|93
3|3 Still Some Clarifications on Mute Law|96
3|4 Neurosciences as a Tool for the ``Emergence´´ of Mute Law|98
3|References|102
2|Cognitive Liberty and Human Rights|105
3|1 Introduction|105
3|2 The Impact of Neuro-Technologies|106
4|2.1 Brain Imaging|107
4|2.2 Brain Stimulation|107
4|2.3 Brain Alterations|108
4|2.4 Cognitive Enhancement|109
3|3 Cognitive Liberty: The Pursuit of a Definition|110
4|3.1 Negative Formulation|110
4|3.2 Positive Formulation|113
3|4 Cognitive Liberty and Human Rights: Relationship in Progress|115
3|5 Conclusive Remarks|118
3|References|119
2|Some Reflections on Neuroscience and Civil Law|122
3|1 Neuroscience and Current Civil Law|122
3|2 The Discovery of Mirror-Neurons and the Use of Neuromarketing in Bargaining|127
3|3 Neuromarketing and Consent Protection|129
3|4 Interference Between Rules of Conduct and Validity Rules and Remedies in the Italian-European System|131
3|5 The Neurosciences, the Capacity and the Protection of the Human Person|134
3|References|139
2|Empowering Negotiating Skills in Law Professionals: Neuro-Cognitive Applications|147
3|1 Lawyers and Negotiation|147
3|2 Available Tools|156
3|3 Conclusion|164
3|References|166
2|The `Mirror Rights´: Reflections on Law and Neuroscience Through the Lens of the Greek Tragedy|170
3|1 Methodical Introduction: The Virtuality of a Dissertation|171
3|2 ``The Birth of Mirror Neurons from the Spirit of Dance´´: From Nietzsche to Neuroscience|173
3|3 Conflicting Rights and the `Private Fear´: Aeschylus´ Agamemnon and The Libation Bearers|180
3|4 The Metamorphosis of Justice and `Ethical-Political Homeostasis´: Aeschylus´ The Eumenides|186
3|References|190
1|Part II: Neuroscience, Health Rights and Human Being: New Challenges|193
2|Neuroenhancement and Law|194
3|1 Human Enhancement: From Science-Fiction to Law. An Introduction|194
3|2 Neuroenhancement: What and How. Towards a Medicalization Process of Human Being?|196
3|3 Drawing the Line Between Therapy and Enhancement. A Study-Case: The Italian Health Care System|202
3|4 Neuroenhancement Between Innovation and Safety|205
3|5 Neuroenhancement and Social Justice Issues|208
3|6 Natural vs. Artificial: The Application of Enhancing Technologies in the Military Context|211
3|7 Conclusion: What Should the Law Do?|213
3|References|215
2|Self-Determination, Health and Equality: The Constitutional Protections for Cognitive Enhancement|220
3|1 Introduction|220
3|2 Constitutional Foundation of Cognitive Enhancement in Regard to Self-Determination and Health: A Contribution Involving Conf...|221
3|3 The Role of the Doctor with Regard to the Self-Determination and Health of the Non-Patient|226
3|4 Constitutional Limitations and Constraints on Cognitive Enhancement|228
4|4.1 Protection of the Health of Individuals Pending Reliable Scientific Data on the Safety of Cognitive Enhancers|229
4|4.2 Self-Determination Versus Hetero Conditioning|231
4|4.3 Self-Determination and Equality: Should Identity Conformity Be an Opportunity Available to All?|233
4|4.4 The Question of Equal Treatment for the Enhanced and the Unenhanced in Sports Competitions, Public Competitions, Examinati...|236
3|5 In Conclusion: Traditional Constitutional Protections for Scientific Innovations|239
3|References|241
2|When the `Age of Science and Technology´ Meets the `Age of Rights´. `Moral´ Bioenhancement as a Case Study|244
3|1 Introduction|245
3|2 The `Age of Rights´ Meets the `Age of Technology´|246
3|3 Making People Morally Better by Means of Technological Enhancement. The Project of `Moral´ Bioenhancement|248
3|4 `Moral´ Bioenhancement and the Search for Perfection: The Legal Problem with Selection of Traits and Respect for Legal Equal...|249
3|5 Some Specific Institutional and Legal Implications of the Project of `Moral´ Bioenhancement: The Categories´ Perspective|252
3|6 Some Brief Conclusive Remarks|258
3|References|259
2|An Epigenetic Pro-action for Moral Development|261
3|1 Introduction|261
3|2 Bio-enhancing Morality|262
3|3 Unconsidered Side Effects|265
3|4 Proactive Epigenesis|267
3|5 The Paramount Importance of Practice|268
3|6 The Qualitative Difference Between Methods|270
3|7 Conclusions|272
3|References|273
2|Brain Computer Interface and Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation in Legal Practice and Regulations|276
3|1 Introduction|276
3|2 BCI and Transcranial Stimulation: Features, State-of-the-Art and Applications|277
3|3 Potentialities and Threats|280
3|4 Specific Regulations and Lacks in Legal Protection of Individuals´ Rights|283
4|4.1 Individuals´ Rights Protection, Neurolaw and Legal Practice|283
4|4.2 Medical Regulations: The MDR|288
4|4.3 MiFID in Finance|289
3|5 Conclusion|290
3|References|290
2|Brain-Computer Interfaces and the Protection of the Fundamental Rights of the Vulnerable Persons|294
3|1 Introduction|294
3|2 The Italian Case-Law About the Non-BCI Communicative and Augmentative Interfaces|296
3|3 Applying the Italian Case-Law About the Non-BCI Communicative and Augmentative Interfaces to the BCI Systems|297
3|4 The Possible Constitutional Framework for the BCI. The Fundamental Rights Involved|300
3|5 The BCI and the EU Regulatory Framework Between ``Medical Devices´´ and ``Electronic Products´´|305
3|6 The Use of BCI and the Identification of a Possible ``Guarantor´´ for the Vulnerable Persons in the Actual Italian Legal Sys...|309
3|7 Conclusions (and a Proposal)|315
3|References|316
2|Ethical and Legal Issues in Deep Brain Stimulation: An Overview|321
3|1 Introduction|321
3|2 Development of the Technique|322
4|2.1 Intrication of Research and Treatment|323
4|2.2 Benefit/Risk Balance and Defining the Pathologies Concerned|325
4|2.3 Benefit/Risk Balance and Defining the Patients Concerned|326
4|2.4 A Renewal of Disciplinary Approaches and the Promotion of Interdisciplinarity|328
3|3 Effects of the Technique|329
4|3.1 Informing the Patient, Adapting the Treatment, and Involving the Family|329
4|3.2 Treatment Efficacy and Social Adjustment|330
4|3.3 Behavioral Disorders, Impact on Identity, and Legal Repercussions|332
4|3.4 Controlling the Device|333
3|4 Conclusion|334
3|References|335
2|Neuroscience and End-of-Life Decisions: What Kind of Coexistence?|340
3|1 Introduction|340
3|2 The Constitutional Foundation of Informed Consent in Italian Constitutional Court Case Law|341
4|2.1 The Recent Italian Law on Informed Consent and Advance Decisions of Medical Treatments in a Nutshell|343
4|2.2 Unresponsive Patients and End-of-Life Decisions: The Legal Principle Stemmed from the Englaro Case|347
4|2.3 From the Libertarian Approach to the Science-Based Approach|349
3|3 Neuroscience and the Capability of ``Reading Minds´´: New Challenges for the World of Law|353
4|3.1 Neuroscience as a Potential Harm to Fundamental Rights|354
4|3.2 Neuroscience as a Potential Ally of Fundamental Rights|355
3|4 Why Should We Resort to Neuroscience in End-of-Life Decisions?|356
4|4.1 The Role of Neuroscience in Surrogate Decision Making. Suggestions from the Case-Law|359
3|5 Free Will and Neuroscience: A Possible Coexistence?|362
3|6 Liberty, Neuroscience, and Law. The Subjective-Objective Dichotomy|363
3|7 A Matter of Balance and a Matter of Roles|367
3|References|368
2|The Dilemma of Human Brain Surrogates: Scientific Opportunities, Ethical Concerns|372
3|1 Introduction|372
3|2 New Brain Surrogate Technologies|374
4|2.1 Human/Non-human Brain Chimeras|374
4|2.2 Non-human Animals with Genetically ``Humanized´´ Brains|376
4|2.3 Human Neural Organoids|378
4|2.4 Ex Vivo Human Brain Tissue|379
4|2.5 Electronic Brain Simulations|382
3|3 Ethical Implications of Human Brain Surrogates|383
4|3.1 The Welfare of the Human Brain Surrogates|383
4|3.2 The Consent and Privacy of the ``Human Parts´´ of the Surrogates|384
4|3.3 Possible Non-research Implications of the Research|387
4|3.4 Possible Non-research Uses of the Surrogates|388
4|3.5 Humanization of Non-humans|389
4|3.6 The Rights of the Surrogates|390
4|3.7 The Role, and Rights, of Societies in Making Decisions About Human Brain Surrogates|392
3|4 Conclusion|395
3|References|395
1|Part III: Mind, Brain and the Courtroom: Opportunities and Controversial Implications|401
2|Neuroscientific Evidence and Criminal Trials|402
3|1 The Emergence of Science in the Trial|402
3|2 Neuroscientific Evidence: Vigilant Precaution|404
3|3 ``Atypical´´ Evidence?|405
3|4 Consent and Compulsory Checks|406
3|5 Full Possession of One´s Faculties (Insanity)|406
3|6 Mental Illness Assessment Limitations|408
3|7 Memory Detection|409
3|8 Neuroscientific Evidence, Self-determination and Personal Protection|411
3|References|412
2|Neuroscience and Law: Conceptual and Practical Issues|414
3|1 The Meaning of Criminal Responsibility|415
3|2 The Sources of Neuroexuberance|416
3|3 The Limits of Behavioral Neuroscience|419
3|4 The Radical Challenges of Neuroscience to Law|424
3|5 Legal Relevance|425
3|6 Neuroevidence in the Criminal Law Courtroom|430
3|7 The Case for Cautious Optimism|433
3|8 Conclusion|436
3|References|436
2|Neurobiological Correlates of Antisocial Human Behavior|440
3|1 The Exercise of Free Will|441
3|2 Bio-Psycho-Social Roots of Human Behavior|442
3|3 Are Psychopathic Criminals Bad or Mad?|446
3|4 Genetics and Behavior: Where Do We Stand?|447
3|5 Behavioral Control Under Sleep Deprivation|448
3|6 Conclusions|449
3|References|450
2|The Methodology of Forensic Neuroscience|452
3|1 Introduction|453
3|2 Brain Imaging in Court: Some Previous Cases|454
3|3 Brain Pathology and Diminished Responsibility|456
3|4 Case Report|461
4|4.1 Clinical and Neuro-Psychological Assessment|461
4|4.2 Brain Imaging Data|462
4|4.3 Re-Analysis of the MRI Data|463
5|4.3.1 Variant of Normality Number 1: The Arachnoid Cyst|463
5|4.3.2 Variant of Normality Number 2: The Empty Sella|464
5|4.3.3 Variant of Normality Number 3: Mega Cisterna Magna|465
5|4.3.4 Variant of Normality Number 4: Enlarged Periencephalic Spaces Around the Frontal and Parietal Lobe|465
4|4.4 Re-Interpretation of the Clinical Data Through the Re-Analysis of the MRI Data|467
4|4.5 Conclusion on This Case Report|468
3|5 Conclusion|469
3|References|470
2|(Neuro)Science and Criminal Trial. Between Scientific Epistemology and Judicial Epistemology|473
3|1 Scientific Evidence and Scientificity of the Evidence Between Judicia Dei and Neuroscience|473
3|2 The Scientific Epistemology|476
3|3 and the Judicial Epistemology|478
3|4 An Unstable Union. Italian History|480
3|5 and Not Only. The North American Experience|484
3|6 The Indications from the European Court of Human Rights|487
3|References|488
2|Tailor-Made Intentions: Legal Categories and (Neuro)Scientific Tools|495
3|1 Introduction|495
3|2 A New Tool|499
3|3 Looking into the Tool|500
3|4 Working with the Tool|502
3|5 Flaws|503
3|6 To Each Their Own|506
3|References|507
2|Moral Freedom and Neuroscientific Assessments: Constitutional Features|510
3|1 Research Setting: Neuroscience as a Contemporary Socratic Maieutic Method Applied to the Penal Process in Relation to Moral ...|510
3|2 The Scope of the ``Concept´´ of Moral Freedom|512
3|3 The Protection of Moral Freedom in the Constitution: The Guidelines of the Constitutional Court and of the Doctrine|513
3|4 The Protection of Moral Freedom at the Legislative Level with Reference to the Penal Process, the Relationship Between the `...|516
3|5 The Indirect Impact on Moral Freedom of the Principles of Nemo Tenetur Se Detegere and of the Dignity of the Human Person|520
3|6 An Attempt to Conclude|522
3|References|523
2|Another Perspective on ``Neurolaw´´: The Use of Brain Imaging in Civil Litigation Regarding Mental Competence|525
3|1 Introduction|525
3|2 Admitting Brain Images as Evidence|530
3|3 Evaluating the Persuasiveness of Brain Images|535
3|4 Conclusion|540
3|References|541
2|Social Neuroscience, Communication and Collective Behavior: Thinking About the Psychic Causation After L´Aquila Earthquake|544
3|1 Introduction|544
3|2 The Uncertain Epistemological Status of Psychic Causation in the L´Aquila Earthquake Trial: The Inadequacy of the ``Pure´´ N...|548
3|3 (Continued) The ``Unbearable Lightness´´ of the Maxims of Experience|553
3|4 Neurosciences, Disasters and Collective Behavior|555
3|5 Neuroscientific ``Laws´´ as ``Middle-Range Theories´´|559
3|References|562