Would a neuroscience of violence aid in understanding legal culpability?

Hardcastle, Valerie Gray

doi:10.1016/j.cogsys.2015.07.004

Cited by 5 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Each individual brain responds to different stimuli leading to homicide in a unique way. Group tendencies, therefore, do not inform how individuals employ judgment, choices, reasoning, self-control, or reactions to peers (Hardcastle, 2015). This is especially problematic in a legal context, where observations about groups are applied to individuals although group findings only provide minimal support for individual determinations (Poldrack et al, 2017).…”

Section: Psychosocial Immaturity and Brain Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…With regard to brain structures that lie beneath the level of the cortex (or subcortical), longitudinal studies of children and adolescents have found that during the second decade of life, the caudate, putamen and nucleus accumbens decrease in volume at a near linear rate but the amygdala, thalamus, and pallidum demonstrate a non-linear increase in volume (Mills & Tamnes, in press). The amygdala is implicated as an engine of fear and anger, and explosiveness (Davis & Whalen, 2001), however, these abnormalities are also found in subjects who are not reactively violent, non-violent offenders, and non-violent non-offenders (Hardcastle, 2015).…”

Section: Psychosocial Immaturity and Brain Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Homicide and Criminal Maturity of Juvenile Offenders: A Critical Review

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 2012, the United States Supreme Court struck down existing legislative statutes mandating life without parole sentencing of convicted homicide offenders under age 18. The Court’s core rationale credited research on brain development that concludes that juveniles are biologically less capable of complex decision-making and impulse control, driven by external influences, and more likely to change. Closer scrutiny of the research cited in the defendants’ amicus brief; however, reveals it to be inherently flawed because it did not include relevant populations, such as violent offenders; utilized hypothetical scenarios or games to approximate decision-making; ignored research on recidivism risk; made untenable leaps in their interpretation of relevance to the study of homicide, and failed to include contradictory evidence, even from the brief’s authors. In forensic assessment, a blanket assumption of immaturity based on a homicide offender’s age is not appropriate, as research has demonstrated that in relevant respects, older adolescents can be just as mature as adults. An individualized and thorough assessment of each juvenile offender, including an analysis of personal history, behavioral evidence such as pre, during, and post crime behavior, and testing data more accurately inform questions of immaturity and prognosis in juvenile violent offenders.

show abstract

Section: Psychosocial Immaturity and Brain Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Psychosocial Immaturity and Brain Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%