Rethinking the voluntary act requirement: Implications from neuroscience and behavioral science research

Area of Science:

• Law and Neuroscience
• Behavioral Sciences
• Criminal Justice

Background:

• The American legal system requires actus reus (voluntary harmful act) and mens rea (guilty mind) for criminal responsibility.
• Courts typically presume voluntariness and mens rea, underpinning retributive punishment.
• This presumption is challenged by neuroscience and behavioral science research.

Purpose of the Study:

• To examine the legal presumption of voluntariness in criminal responsibility.
• To analyze how courts conflate actus reus and mens rea.
• To explore the implications of scientific research for the voluntary act requirement and propose a new framework for punishment.

Main Methods:

• Legal analysis of court decisions and the presumption of voluntariness.
• Review of neuroscience and behavioral science research.
• Conceptual analysis of legal responsibility and punishment frameworks.

Main Results:

• Courts often fail to rigorously assess the voluntary nature of acts, conflating it with mens rea.
• Scientific evidence challenges the assumption of free will underlying the presumption of voluntariness.
• Current retributive punishment models may be undermined by these findings.

Conclusions:

• The legal presumption of voluntariness is not robust enough to support retributive punishment.
• Re-conceptualizing punishment within a consequentialist, empirically-based framework is necessary.
• Reinvigorating the actus reus (voluntary act) as the foundation for legal responsibility is proposed.