Impulse control and criminal responsibility: Lessons from neuroscience

Penney, Steven

doi:10.1016/j.ijlp.2011.12.004

Cited by 45 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, most Western Penal Codes assume that the defendant cannot be convicted if he/she is considered unable to evaluate the circumstances surrounding the anti-juridical fact, and/or if he/she is unable to control his/her urges, impulses, or responses. If a subject lacked these abilities, then courts may use statements such as “not guilty by reason of insanity,” “incapacitated person,” or “(partial) mental insanity” (2). Recent developments of neuroscience in clinical practice have lead to consider the potential role of neuroscience data for assessing criminal responsibility in forensic psychiatric examination (FPE) (3).…”

Section: Neuroscience Data and Forensic Psychiatric Examination: Oppomentioning

confidence: 99%

Which Future for Neuroscience in Forensic Psychiatry: Theoretical Hurdles and Empirical Chances

Casartelli

Chiamulera

2013

Front. Psychiatry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Neuroscience Data and Forensic Psychiatric Examination: Oppomentioning

confidence: 99%

Which Future for Neuroscience in Forensic Psychiatry: Theoretical Hurdles and Empirical Chances

Casartelli

Chiamulera

2013

Front. Psychiatry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Symptoms in FLS, such as planning function, inhibition loss, hypomanic attacks, impulsiveness, antisocial behaviours, depression, apathy and perseveration are the conditions that restrict the voluntary act [2]. Studies indicate that individuals diagnosed with FLS are aware of the impropriety of their choices, but they cannot forbear to do [11].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Criminal Responsibility of the Frontal Lobe Syndrome

Şener¹,

Özcan²,

Sahingoz³

et al. 2015

Eurasian J Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Neurological and/or psychiatric symptoms might be detected due to damage of frontal lobes as detected in damages of many brain regions. Frontal lobe syndrome (FLS) occurs as a result of damage in prefrontal region due to various causes. Symptoms due to prefrontal region damage, varies according to the size and location of the lesion. In most of the cases; executive dysfunctions, attention deficits, inconsistencies in social life, impulse control problems, obsessive behaviors and violence behaviors are common clinical signs. Behavioral symptoms seen in FLS can be confused with personality disorders and negative symptoms of schizophrenia. FLS is a neuropsychiatric disorder rarely assessed in forensic psychiatry and in terms of detection of criminal responsibility. In this case report, criminal responsibility in FLS was assessed through a FLS case in which an offense of "threat" was committed and investigated in terms of criminal responsibility.

show abstract

“…([43], p. 817). Although Morse considers this impossible to determine, empirical results can be useful in at least providing evidence on practical questions of control, and at most determining it altogether [44]. 5 The BDM model can help explain why addictive behaviour is more difficult to control in theory.…”

Section: The Apparent Debatementioning

confidence: 99%

The (in)Significance of the Addiction Debate

Goldberg

2019

Neuroethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Substance addiction affects millions of individuals worldwide and yet there is no consensus regarding its conceptualisation. Recent neuroscientific developments fuel the view that addiction can be classified as a brain disease, whereas a different body of scholars disagrees by claiming that addictive behaviour is a choice. These two models, the Brain Disease Model and the Choice Model, seem to oppose each other directly. This article contends the belief that the two models in the addiction debate are polar opposites. It shows that it is not the large amount of addiction research in itself what sets the models apart, but rather their extrapolated conclusions. Moreover, some of the most fiercely debated aspects -for instance, whether or not addiction should be classified as a disease or disorder -are irrelevant for the conceptualisation of addiction. Instead, the real disagreement is shown to revolve around capacities. Discussing addiction-related capacities, especially regarding impaired control, rather than the assumed juxtaposition of the two models can be considered the true addiction debate. More insight into the extent to which the capacities of the addicted individual were affected would be highly useful in various other areas, especially legal responsibility.

show abstract

Impulse control and criminal responsibility: Lessons from neuroscience

Cited by 45 publications

References 52 publications

Which Future for Neuroscience in Forensic Psychiatry: Theoretical Hurdles and Empirical Chances

Which Future for Neuroscience in Forensic Psychiatry: Theoretical Hurdles and Empirical Chances

Criminal Responsibility of the Frontal Lobe Syndrome

The (in)Significance of the Addiction Debate

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About