Forbes recently ran a piece titled “Will Brain Scanning Help Me Beat A Speeding Ticket?” which highlights the work and mission of the MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Law and Neuroscience.
To read the entire article, visit: http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertszczerba/2014/12/02/will-brain-scanning-help-me-beat-a-speeding-ticket/
The New York Times published an opinion piece by Anna North titled, “Can Brain Science Be Dangerous?” The piece offers an interesting perspective and can be accessed here: http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/op-talk/2014/11/24/can-brain-science-be-dangerous/?ref=opinion&_r=0&referrer=
Congratulations to Stephen J. Morse and Laurence Steinberg, recent winners of the Elizabeth
Hurlock Beckman Award. Morse and Steinberg are both members of the MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Law and Neuroscience, and this award is given to current or former academic faculty members who have inspired their former students to “create an organization which has demonstrably conferred a benefit on the community at large.”
The Center for Law, Brain & Behavior has launched a new Juvenile Justice website.
“A wider and better-translated neuroscientific understanding of the adolescent brain could transform the juvenile justice system. Visit the Juvenile Justice & the Adolescent Brain program page to explore the issue, access resources, and learn about CLBB’s contributions to this issue.”
New Scientist recently ran an op-ed authored by Research Network Member Larry Steinberg titled, “Let science decide the voting age.” The piece addresses the teen vote in the Scotland independence referendum and research on the adolescent brain that “can help us decide whether 16-year-olds should have the vote.”
To read the entire piece, visit: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22429900.200-let-science-decide-the-voting-age.html?full=true#.VDxC2KMo6mQ
Research Network Member Morris Hoffman, who is a state trial judge in Denver and author of The Punisher’s Brain: The Evolution of Judge and Jury, has recently published two opinion pieces.
The LA Times ran “Why the rule of law requires the bite of punishment,” accessible here: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-hoffman-sentencing-deterrence-20141002-story.html
And USA Today ran “Emptying prisons is no panacea,” accessible here: http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/09/30/emptying-prisons-rehabilitation-deterring-punishment-column/16508959/
The MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Law and Neuroscience distributes an e-newsletter, Neurolaw News, which highlights important items of interest for the neurolaw community. These include notifications of new publications, news of upcoming neurolaw conferences, and the like. To avoid inbox clutter, distributions occur approximately once every 2 months.
To subscribe to the newsletter, please visit: http://www.lawneuro.org/listserv.php
For the latest edition of Neurolaw News, please visit: http://www.lawneuro.org/listserv.php#archives
Dr. Laurence Steinberg, Distinguished University Professor and the Laura H. Carnell Professor of Psychology at Temple University and member of the MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Law and Neuroscience, published his latest New York Times op-ed titled “The Case for Delayed Adulthood.” The piece argues that “[p]rolonged adolescence, in the right circumstances, is actually a good thing, for it fosters novelty-seeking and the acquisition of new skills.”
To read the full piece, visit: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/21/opinion/sunday/the-case-for-delayed-adulthood.html?_r=0
A new article represents a major advance in understanding the interactions of rational and emotional brain regions during punishment decisions.
The work – Corticolimbic Gating of Emotion-Driven Punishment – appears in the leading neuroscience journal Nature Neuroscience.
Determining the appropriate punishment for a norm violation requires consideration of both the perpetrator’s state of mind (for example, purposeful or blameless) and the strong emotions elicited by the harm caused by their actions. It has been hypothesized that such affective responses serve as a heuristic that determines appropriate punishment. However, an actor’s mental state often trumps the effect of emotions, as unintended harms may go unpunished, regardless of their magnitude. Using fMRI, we found that emotionally graphic descriptions of harmful acts amplify punishment severity, boost amygdala activity and strengthen amygdala connectivity with lateral prefrontal regions involved in punishment decision-making. However, this was only observed when the actor’s harm was intentional; when harm was unintended, a temporoparietal-medial-prefrontal circuit suppressed amygdala activity and the effect of graphic descriptions on punishment was abolished. These results reveal the brain mechanisms by which evaluation of a transgressor’s mental state gates our emotional urges to punish.
The Vanderbilt Press Release on the new research appears here: http://news.vanderbilt.edu/2014/08/fault-trumps-gruesome-evidence/
Please contact for commentary:
Owen D. Jones, Richard J. Bonnie, B. J. Casey, Andre Davis, David L. Faigman, Morris Hoffman, Read Montague, Stephen J. Morse, Marcus E. Raichle, Jennifer A. Richeson, Elizabeth Scott, Laurence Steinberg, Kim Taylor-Thompson, Anthony Wagner, and Gideon Yaffe, Law and Neuroscience: Recommendations Submitted to the President’s Bioethics Commission, 1(2) J Law Biosci 224 (2014).
President Obama charged the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues to identify a set of core ethical standards in the neuroscience domain, including the appropriate use of neuroscience in the criminal-justice system. The Commission, in turn, called for comments and recommendations.
The MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Law and Neuroscience submitted a consensus statement containing 16 specific recommendations. These are organized within three main themes: 1) what steps should be taken to enhance the capacity of the criminal justice system to make sound decisions regarding the admissibility and weight of neuroscientific evidence?; 2) to what extent can the capacity of neurotechnologies to aid in the administration of criminal justice be enhanced through research?; and 3) in what additional ways might important ethical issues at the intersection of neuroscience and criminal justice be addressed?
These comments along with introductory commentary have been published by the Journal of Law and the Biosciences, and can be accessed here: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2489072