Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Responsibility and punishment: whose mind? A response.

Oliver R Goodenough1

  • 1Vermont Law School, Chelsea Street, South Royalton, VT 05091, USA. ogoodenough@vermontlaw.edu

Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences
|December 14, 2004
PubMed
Summary

Cognitive neuroscience challenges legal tests for mental incapacity by examining the punisher's psychology, not just the offender's. This reframes criminal responsibility and explains beliefs in free will.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Words or code first? Is the legacy document or a code statement the better starting point for complexity-reducing legal automation?

Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences·2024
Same author

Individual differences in moral judgment competence influence neural correlates of socio-normative judgments.

Social cognitive and affective neuroscience·2008
Same author

A neuroscientific approach to normative judgment in law and justice.

Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences·2004
See all related articles

Area of Science:

  • Cognitive Neuroscience
  • Legal Psychology
  • Philosophy of Law

Background:

  • Current legal frameworks for criminal responsibility rely on flawed psychological assumptions about offender mental incapacity.
  • Existing critiques of these legal tests focus primarily on the offender's psychology.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To challenge the prevailing focus on offender psychology in criminal responsibility.
  • To introduce the psychology of the punisher as a critical element in understanding legal cognition.
  • To offer a new perspective on the legal concept of free will.

Main Methods:

  • Analysis of cognitive neuroscience findings in relation to legal tests for mental incapacity.
  • Introduction of the strategic structure of punishment into the analysis of responsibility.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Examination of the psychology of the punisher as the locus of cognition informing responsibility rules.

    • Main Results:

    • Critiques of legal tests for mental incapacity may be incomplete by overlooking the punisher's cognitive role.
    • Considering the punisher's psychology helps explain the counterfactual assumptions about offender psychology in law.
    • This approach offers a potential explanation for the conviction in the existence of free will, particularly in others.

    Conclusions:

    • The psychology of the punisher is a crucial, often overlooked, factor in criminal responsibility.
    • A shift in focus from offender to punisher psychology can refine legal understanding of mental incapacity.
    • This perspective may reconcile legal concepts of responsibility with the perceived reality of free will.