Neurolaw and Neuroprediction: Potential Promises and Perils

Philosophy Compass 7 (9):631-642 (2012)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Neuroscience has been proposed for use in the legal system for purposes of mind reading, assessment of responsibility, and prediction of misconduct. Each of these uses has both promises and perils, and each raises issues regarding the admissibility of neuroscientific evidence.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,386

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Promises which cannot be kept.Walter Sinnott-Armstrong - 1988 - Philosophia 18 (4):399-407.
Promising Too Much.Julia Driver - 2011 - In Hanoch Sheinman (ed.), Promises and Agreements: Philosophical Essays. Oxford University Press.
Assurance and Scanlon's theory of promises.Richard Parkhill - 2008 - Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 108 (1pt3):385-392.
Promises, promises: General learning algorithms.David W. Lightfoot - 1998 - Mind and Language 13 (4):582–587.
Terms of agreement.Kent Bach - 1995 - Ethics 105 (3):604-612.
Promises and rule consequentialism.Brad Hooker - 2011 - In Hanoch Sheinman (ed.), Promises and Agreements. New York, USA: Oxford University Press. pp. 235-252.

Analytics

Added to PP
2012-08-23

Downloads
187 (#102,404)

6 months
18 (#135,061)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author Profiles

Thomas Nadelhoffer
College of Charleston