III - Legal Doctrine and Cognitive Sciences
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 April 2021
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Law and MindA Survey of Law and the Cognitive Sciences, pp. 215 - 350Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021
References
References
Balkin, J. M. (2015). Information Fiduciaries and the First Amendment. UCDL Review, 49, 1183.Google Scholar
Balkin, J. M. (2018). Fixing Social Media’s Grand Bargain. Hoover Working Group on National Security, Technology, and Law, Aegis Series Paper (1814).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bar-Gill, O. (2012). Seduction by Contract: Law, Economics, and Psychology in Consumer Markets. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bartol, C. R., & Bartol, A. M. (2019). Psychology and Law: Research and Practice. Los Angeles: SAGE.Google Scholar
Ben-Shahar, O., & Schneider, C. E. (2014). More Than You Wanted to Know: The Failure of Mandated Disclosure. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Benson, P. (2001). The Theory of Contract Law: New Essays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Blitz, M. J. (2017). Searching Minds by Scanning Brains: Neuroscience Technology and Constitutional Privacy Protection. Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Böhm, F. (1966). Privatrechtsgesellschaft und Marktwirtschaft. ORDO: Jahrbuch Für Die Ordnung von Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft 17, 75–151. www.jstor.org/stable/23742267.Google Scholar
Brożek, B. (2017b). The Troublesome “Person.” In Legal Personhood: Animals, Artificial Intelligence and the Unborn. Cham: Springer, pp. 3–13.Google Scholar
Brożek, B. (2019). The Legal Mind: A New Introduction to Legal Epistemology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Calabresi, G. (1965). The Decision for Accidents: An Approach to Nonfault Allocation of Costs. Harvard Law Review, 78(4), 713–745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chabris, C. F., & Simons, D. (2011). The Invisible Gorilla: And Other Ways Our Intuitions Deceive Us. Chicago: Harmony.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. (2019). Between Truth and Power: The Legal Constructions of Informational Capitalism. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Draper, N. A. (2019). The Identity Trade: Selling Privacy and Reputation Online. New York: NYU Press.Google Scholar
Draper, N. A., & Turow, J. (2017). Audience Constructions, Reputations, and Emerging Media Technologies. In Brownsword, Roger, Scotford, Eloise, and Yeung, Karen (eds.),The Oxford Handbook of Law, Regulation and Technology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fruehwald, E. S. (2018). Understanding and Overcoming Cognitive Biases for Lawyers and Law Students: Becoming a Better Lawyer Through Cognitive Science. San Bernandino, CA: CreateSpace.Google Scholar
Gibbs, S. (2014, July 2). Facebook Apologises for Psychological Experiments on Users. The Guardian. www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jul/02/facebook-apologises-psychological-experiments-on-usersGoogle Scholar
Gneezy, U., & Rustichini, A. (2000). A Fine Is a Price. The Journal of Legal Studies 29(1), 1–17.Google Scholar
Gordley, J. (2006). Foundations of Private Law: Property, Tort, Contract, Unjust Enrichment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Granhag, P. A., Bull, R., Shaboltas, A., & Dozortseva, E. (eds.). (2016). Psychology and Law in Europe: When West Meets East. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Hage, J. (2011). A Model of Juridical Acts: Part 1: The World of Law. Artificial Intelligence and Law 19(1), 23–48.Google Scholar
Hage, J. (2013). Juridical Acts and the Gap Between Is and Ought. Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy 42, 50.Google Scholar
Hayek, F. A. (1945). The Use of Knowledge in Society. The American Economic Review 35(4), 519–530.Google Scholar
Hirstein, W., Sifferd, K., & Fagan, T. (2018). Responsible Brains: Neuroscience, Law, and Human Culpability. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Howells, G., Micklitz, H. W., & Wilhelmsson, T. (2016). European Fair Trading Law: The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jolls, C., Sunstein, C. R., & Thaler, R. (1998). A Behavioral Approach to Law and Economics. Stanford Law Review, 50, 1471–1550.Google Scholar
Jones, O. D., Schall, J. D., & Shen, F. X. (2014). Law and Neuroscience. New York: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.Google Scholar
Kaplow, L., & Shavell, S. (2009). Fairness Versus Welfare. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Keynes, J. M. (1936). The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Knight, F. H. (2012). Risk, Uncertainty and Profit. North Chelmsford: Courier Corporation. (Reprint of the first edition, 1921.)Google Scholar
Kramer, A. D., Guillory, J. E. & Hancock, J. T. (2014). Experimental Evidence of Massive-Scale Emotional Contagion Through Social Networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111(24), 8788–8790.Google Scholar
Kraus, J. S. (2002). Philosophy of Contract Law. In Coleman, Jules L., Einar Himma, Kenneth, & Shapiro, Scott J. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lanier, J. (2018). Ten Arguments for Deleting Your Social Media Accounts Rights Now. New York: Henry Holt and Company.Google Scholar
Leczykiewicz, D., & Weatherill, S. (eds.). (2016). The Images of the Consumer in EU Law: Legislation, Free Movement and Competition Law. Oxford: Bloomsbury Publishing.Google Scholar
Lessig, L. (1999). The Law of the Horse: What Cyber Law Might Teach. Harvard Law Review 113, 501.Google Scholar
Libet, B. W. (1993). Neuronal vs. Subjective Timing for a Conscious Sensory Experience. In Neurophysiology of Consciousness: Contemporary Neuroscientists (Selected Papers of Leaders in Brain Research). Boston, MA: Birkhäuser, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-0355-1_8Google Scholar
Loos, M., & Luzak, J. (2016). Wanted: A Bigger Stick. On Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts With Online Service Providers. Journal of Consumer Policy 39(1), 63–90.Google Scholar
Lustig, R. (2017). The Hacking of the American Mind: The Science Behind the Corporate Takeover of Our Bodies and Brains. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Luzak, J. A. (2014). To Withdraw or Not to Withdraw? Evaluation of the Mandatory Right of Withdrawal in Consumer Distance Selling Contracts Taking Into Account Its Behavioural Effects on Consumers. Journal of Consumer Policy 37(1), 91–111.Google Scholar
Mele, A. (2014). Free: Why Science Hasn’t Disproved Free Will. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Micklitz, H. W. (2009). The Visible Hand of European Regulatory Private Law – The Transformation of European Private Law from Autonomy to Functionalism in Competition and Regulation. Yearbook of European Law 28(1), 3-59.Google Scholar
Micklitz, H. W. (2018). The Politics of Behavioural Economics of Law. In Micklitz, H. W., Sibony, A. L., & Esposito, F. (eds.), Research Methods in Consumer Law: A Handbook. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
Micklitz, H. W., Pałka, P., & Panagis, Y. (2017). The Empire Strikes Back: Digital Control of Unfair Terms of Online Services. Journal of Consumer Policy 40(3), 367–388.Google Scholar
Micklitz, H. W., Sibony, A. L., & Esposito, F. (eds.). (2018). Research Methods in Consumer Law: A Handbook. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
Miller, M. K., & Bornstein, B. H. (2016). Advances in Psychology and Law. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
Mik, E. (2016). The Erosion of Autonomy in Online Consumer Transactions. Law, Innovation & Technology 8(1), 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mousourakis, G. (2015). Roman Law and the Origins of the Civil Law Tradition. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newman, J. M. (2019). Attention and the Law. SSRN: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3423487Google Scholar
Pałka, P. (2020). Data Management Law for the 2020s: The Lost Origins and the New Needs. Buffalo Law Review 68(2).Google Scholar
Pardo, M. S. & Patterson, D. M. (2013). Minds, Brains, and Law: The Conceptual Foundations of Law and Neuroscience. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Passera, S. (2015). Beyond the Wall of Text: How Information Design Can Make Contracts User-Friendly. In International Conference of Design, User Experience, and Usability. Cham: Springer, pp. 341–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Passingham, R. (2016). Cognitive Neuroscience: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Patterson, D. M., & Pardo, M. S. (2016). Philosophical Foundations of Law and Neuroscience. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Posner, E. A., & Weyl, E. G. (2018). Radical Markets: Uprooting Capitalism and Democracy For a Just Society. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Purtova, N. (2015). The Illusion of Personal Data as No One’s Property. Law, Innovation and Technology 7(1), 83–111.Google Scholar
Robbennolt, J. K., & Hans, V. P. (2016). The Psychology of Tort Law. In Miller, M. K. & Bornstein, B. H. (eds.), Advances in Psychology and Law, Vol. 1. Cham: Springer, pp. 249–274.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, M., Confessore, N., & Cadwalladr, C. (2018). How Trump Consultants Exploited the Facebook Data of Millions. New York Times. www.nytimes.com/2018/03/17/us/politics/cambridge-analytica-trump-campaign.htmlGoogle Scholar
Sales, B. D., & Krauss, D. A. (2015). The Psychology of Law: Human Behavior, Legal Institutions, and Law. Washington, DC: APA.Google Scholar
Sartor, G. (2006). Fundamental Legal Concepts: A Formal and Teleological Characterisation. Artificial Intelligence and Law 14(1–2), 101–142.Google Scholar
Shuman, D. W. (1994). The Psychology of Compensation in Tort Law. University of Kansas Law Review 43, 39.Google Scholar
Solove, D. J. (2013). Introduction: Privacy Self-Management and the Consent Dilemma. Harvard Law Review 126(7), 1880–1903.Google Scholar
Sunstein, C. R. (2000). Behavioral Law and Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thagard, P. (2018). Cognitive Science. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cognitive-science/.Google Scholar
Thaler, R. (2016). Misbehaving: The Making of Behavioral Economics. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science 185(4157), 1124–1131.Google Scholar
Vaughn, L. B. (2012). Feeling at Home: Law, Cognitive Science, and Narrative. McGeorge Law Review 43, 999.Google Scholar
Williams, J. (2018). Stand Out Of Our Light: Freedom and Resistance in the Attention Economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williamson, O. E. (1989). Transaction Cost Economics. Handbook of Industrial Organization 1, 135–182.Google Scholar
Wu, T. (2017). The Attention Merchants: The Epic Scramble to Get Inside Our Heads. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
Zamir, E., & Teichman, D. (2018). Behavioral Law and Economics. New York: University Press.Google Scholar
Zittrain, J. (2014). Facebook Could Decide an Election Without Anyone Ever Finding Out: the Scary Future of Digital Gerrymandering – and How to Prevent It. New Statesman America. www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/06/facebook-could-decide-election-without-anyone-ever-finding-outGoogle Scholar
Zuboff, S. (2019). The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power. New York: Profile Books.Google Scholar
References
Aharoni, E., Funk, C., Sinnott-Armstrong, W., & Gazzaniga, M. (2008). Can Neurological Evidence Help Courts Assess Criminal Responsibility? Lessons from Law and Neuroscience. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1124, 145–160.Google Scholar
Brożek, B. (2015). O naturalizacji prawa (On the naturalization of law). In Stelmach, J., Brożek, B., Kurek, Ł, & Eliasz, K. (eds.). Naturalizacja prawa: Interpretacje. Warsaw: Wolters Kluwer.Google Scholar
Damasio, A. (1994). Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain. New York: Putnam Publishing.Google Scholar
Hage, J. (2019). Autonomy, Reason and Bias in Contract Law. In Waltermann, A., Roef, D., Hage, J., & Jelicic, M. (eds.), Law, Science, Rationality. The Hague: Eleven International Publishing.Google Scholar
Libet, B. (1985). Unconscious Cerebral Initiative and the Role of Conscious Will in Voluntary Action. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 8, 529–539.Google Scholar
Morse, J. (2015). Neuroscience, Free Will, and Criminal Responsibility. Faculty Scholarship (Paper 1604) http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship/1604.Google Scholar
Morsella, E., & Bargh, J. (2008). The Unconscious Mind. Perspectives on Psychological Science 3(1), 73–79.Google Scholar
References
Blomsma, Jeroen, & Roef, David. (2019a). Forms and Aspects of Mens Rea. In Keiler, Johannes & Roef, David (eds.), Comparatible Concepts of Criminal Law. Cambridge: Intersentia, pp. 177–205.Google Scholar
Blomsma, Jeroen, & Roef, David. (2019b). Justifications and Excuses. In Keiler, Johannes & Roef, David (eds.), Comparatible Concepts of Criminal Law. Cambridge: Intersentia, pp. 207–51.Google Scholar
Carlsmith, Kevin M. (2008). On Justifying Punishment: The Discrepancy between Words and Actions. Social Justice Research 21, 199–137.Google Scholar
Caruso, Gregg D. (2018). Skepticism About Moral Responsibility. In Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2018 Edition). Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2018/entries/skepticism-moral-responsibility/Google Scholar
Chisholm, Roderick M. (1982). Human Freedom and the Self. In Watson, Gary (ed.). Free Will. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 24–35.Google Scholar
Curd, Martin, & Cover, J. A. (eds.). (1998). Philosophy of Science. New York and London: W.W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
Dennett, Daniel C. (1984). Elbow Room. The Varieties of Free Will Worth Wanting. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dworkin, Ronald. (2011). Justice for Hedgehogs. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Feinberg, Joel. (1970). Doing and Deserving. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Fischer, John Martin, & Ravizza, Mark (eds.) (1993). Perspectives on Moral Responsibility. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Fletcher, George P. (2007). The Grammar of Criminal Law. Volume One: Foundations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Frankfurt, Harry G. (1969). Alternate Possibilities and Moral Responsibility. Journal of Philosophy 45, 829–39.Google Scholar
Frankfurt, Harry G. (1971). Freedom of the Will and the Concept of a Person. Journal of Philosophy 68, 5–20.Google Scholar
Frankfurt, Harry G. (1983). What Are We Morally Responsible For. In Cauman, Leigh S. & Morgenbesser, S. (eds.), How Many Questions? Essays in Honor of Sidney Morgenbesser. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.Google Scholar
Greene, Joshua, & Cohen, Jonathan. (2004). For the Law, Neuroscience Changes Nothing and Everything. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 359, 1781–85.Google Scholar
Hage, Jaap. (2017b). Tort Law. In Hage, Jaap, Waltermann, Antonia, & Akkermans, Bram (eds.), Introduction to Law, 2nd ed. Cham: Springer, pp. 109–28.Google Scholar
Hage, Jaap. (2018). Foundations and Building Blocks of Law. Den Haag: Eleven International Publishing.Google Scholar
Hart, H. L. A. (1968). Punishment and Responsibility. Essays in the Philosophy of Law. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Hodgson, David. (2002). Quantum Physics, Consciousness and Free Will. In Kane, 2002, pp. 85–110.Google Scholar
Kane, Robert (ed.). (2002). The Oxford Handbook of Free Will. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kane, Robert. (2005). A Contemporary Introduction to Free Will. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kornhuber, K., & Deecke, L. (1965). Hirnpotentialänderungen bei Willkürbewegungen und passiven Bewegungen des Menschen: Bereitschaftspotential und reafferente Potentiale. Pflügers Archiv für die gesamte Physiologie des Menschen und der Tiere 284, 1–17.Google Scholar
Libet, B. (1985). Unconscious Cerebral Initiative and the Role of Conscious Will in Voluntary Action. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 8, 529–66.Google Scholar
Mackor, Anne Ruth. (2013). What Can Neuroscience Say About Responsibility? Taking the Distinction Between Theoretical and Practical Reason Seriously. In Vincent, 2013, pp. 53–83.Google Scholar
Maslen, Cei, Horgan, Terry, & Daly, Helen. (2009). Mental Causation. In Beebee, Helen, Hitchcock, Christopher, & Menzies, Peter (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Causation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 523–53.Google Scholar
McKenna, Michael, & Coates, D. Justin. (2020). Compatibilism. In Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2020 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2020/entries/compatibilism/Google Scholar
McLaughlin, Brian P. (1994). Epiphenomenalism. In Guttenplan, Samuel (ed.), A Companion to the Philosophy of Mind. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 277–88.Google Scholar
Metzinger, Thomas. (2011). The No-Self Alternative. In Gallagher, Shaun (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of The Self. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 279–96.Google Scholar
Michaels, Ralph. (2006). The Functional Method of Comparative Law. In Reimann, M. & Zimmerman, R. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 339–82.Google Scholar
Miller, Alexander. (2019). Realism. In Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2019 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2019/entries/realism/Google Scholar
Moore, Michael. (2018). ‘Nothing But a Pack of Neurons’: The Moral Responsibility of the Human Machine. In Donelly-Lazarov, Bebhinn (ed.), Neurolaw and Responsibility for Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 28–70.Google Scholar
Morse, Steven J. (2013). Common Criminal Law Compatibilism. In Vincent, 2013, pp. 27–52.Google Scholar
O’Connor, Timothy. (1995). Agent Causation. In O’Connor, Timothy (ed.), Agents, Causes & Events, Essays on Indeterminism and Free Will. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 173–200.Google Scholar
O’Connor, Timothy, & Franklin, Christopher. (2020). Free Will. In Edward N. Zalta (ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2020 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2020/entries/freewill/Google Scholar
Peereboom, Derk. (2001). Living Without Free Will. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peereboom, Derk. (2014). Free Will, Agency and Meaning in Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. (1976). Quantifiers and Propositional Attitudes. In Quine, W. V. (ed.), The Ways of Paradox and Other Essays (revised and enlarged edition). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 185–96.Google Scholar
Robb, David, & Heil, John. (2019). Mental Causation. In Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2019 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2019/entries/mental-causation/Google Scholar
Robinson, William. (2019). Epiphenomenalism. In Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2019 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2019/entries/epiphenomenalism/Google Scholar
Searle, John R. (1983). Intentionality: An Essay in the Philosophy of Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter. (ed.). (2014). Moral Psychology, Volume 4: Free Will and Moral Responsibility. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter, & Nadel, Lynn. (eds.) (2011). Conscious Will and Responsibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Smart, J. J. C. (2017). The Mind/Brain Identity Theory. In Edward N. Zalta (ed.),The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2017 edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2017/entries/mind-identity/.Google Scholar
Smilansky, Saul. (2002). Free Will, Fundamental Dualism, and the Centrality of Illusion. In Kane, 2002, pp. 489–505.Google Scholar
Smits, Jan M. (2017). An Advanced Introduction to Private Law. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
Strawson, Peter. (1962). Freedom and Resentment. Proceedings of the British Academy, 48, 1–25.Google Scholar
Strawson, Galen. (2011). The Minimal Subject. In Gallagher, Shaun (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of The Self. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 253–78.Google Scholar
Talbert, Matthew. (2019). Moral Responsibility. In Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2019 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2019/entries/moral-responsibilityGoogle Scholar
Van Inwagen, Peter. (1995). When Is the Will Free? In O’Connor, Timothy (ed.), Agents, Causes & Events, Essays on Indeterminism and Free Will. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 219–38.Google Scholar
Vincent, Nicole A. (ed.). (2013). Neuroscience and Legal Responsibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wegner, Daniel M. (2002). The Illusion of Conscious Will. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
White, Alan R. (1985). Grounds of Liability: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Law. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
References
Achenbach, H. (1974). Historische und dogmatische Grundlagen der Strafrechtssystematischen Schuldlehre. Berlin: Schweitzer.Google Scholar
Barczak-Oplustil, A. (2005). Sporne zagadnienia istoty winy w prawie karnym. Zarys problemu (Disputable Issues of the Essence of Guilt in Criminal Law. Outline of the Problem). Czasopismo Prawa Karnego i Nauk Penalnych (Journal of Criminal Law and Penal Studies), 9(2) 79–96. https://czpk.pl/dokumenty/zeszyty/2005/zeszyt2/Barczak-Oplustil_A-Sporne_zagadnienia_istoty_winy_w_prawie_karnym._Zarys_problemu-CZPKiNP_2005-z.2.pdfGoogle Scholar
Barczak-Oplustil, A. (2016). Zasada koincydencji winy i czynu w Kodeksie karnym (Principle of Coincidence of Guilt and Act in Criminal Code). Kraków: Krakowski Instytut Prawa Karnego Fundacja (Kraków Institute of Criminal Law Foundation).Google Scholar
Belzer, M. (2005). Self-Conception and Personal Identity: Revisiting Parfit and Lewis with an Eye on the Grip of the Unity Reaction. Social Philosophy and Policy 22(2). 126–64. www.cambridge.org/core/journals/social-philosophy-and-policy/article/selfconception-and-personal-identity-revisiting-parfit-and-lewis-with-an-eye-on-the-grip-of-the-unity-reaction/4E60FA91894DD65FC00B8343BC3E0FE7Google Scholar
Brożek, B., & Jakubiec, M. (2017). On the Legal Responsibility of Autonomous Machines. Artificial Intelligence and Law 25, 293–304. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10506-017-9207-8Google Scholar
Chwast, J. (1964). The Social Function of Guilt. Social Work 9(2)(April), 58–63. https://academic.oup.com/sw/article-abstract/9/2/58/1942722?redirectedFrom=fulltextGoogle Scholar
Corrado, M. (1991). Notes on the Structure of a Theory of Excuses. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 82(3)(Autumn), 465–497.Google Scholar
D’Amato, A. (1980). The Speluncean Explorers – Further Proceedings. Stanford Law Review, 32, 67–485.Google Scholar
Dancing-Rosenberg, H., & Dagan, N. (2019). Retributarianism: A New Individualization of Punishment. Criminal Law and Philosophy 19, 129–147.Google Scholar
Dennett, D. (1976). Conditions of Personhood. In Oksenberg-Rorty, A. (ed.), The Identities of Persons. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Detlefsen, G. (2006). Grenzen der Freiheit – Bedingungen des Handelns – Perspektive des Schuldprinzips. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot GmbH.Google Scholar
Douglas, T. (2019). Punishing Wrongs From the Distant Past. Law and Philosophy 38. 335–358. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10982-019-09352-8Google Scholar
Feuerbach, A. (1798). Revision der Grundsätze und Grundbegriffe des peinlichen Rechts. Chemnitz: Erfurt.Google Scholar
Filar, M. (2011). Umyślność faktyczna czy umyślność prawna? (Factual or Legal Intent?) In Majewski, J. (ed.), Umyślność i jej formy. Pokłosie VII Bielańskiego Kolokwium Karnistycznego (Intentionality and its Forms. The Results of VII Bielany Criminal Law Colloquium). Toruń: Towarzystwo Naukowe Organizacji i Kierownictwa. Dom Organizatora.Google Scholar
Freudenthal, B. (1922). Schuld und Vorwurf im geltenden Strafrecht. Tübingen. J. C. B. Mohr.Google Scholar
Fuller, L. L. (1949). The Case of the Speluncean Explorers. Harvard Law Review 62(4). 616–45. www.jstor.org/stable/1336025?origin=crossref&seq=1Google Scholar
Glaser, S. (1934). Normatywna nauka o winie (Normative theory of guilt). Warsaw. Drukarnia Rolnicza. www.wbc.poznan.pl/dlibra/publication/287312/edition/236735/contentGoogle Scholar
Goldschmidt, J. (1913). Der Notstand, ein Schuldproblem: mit Rücksicht auf die Strafgesetzentwürfe Deutschlands, Oesterreichs und der Schweiz. Vienna: Manz Juristische Gesellschaft.Google Scholar
Graf zu Dohna, A. (1905). Die Elemente des Schuldbegriffs. Stuttgart: Stuttgart Union Deutsche Verlagsgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Greenawalt, K. (1986). Distinguishing Justifications from Excuses. Law and Contemporary Problems 49(3), Responsibility (Summer), 89–108.Google Scholar
Greene, J., & Cohen, J. (2004). For the Law, Neuroscience Changes Nothing and Everything. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 359(1451), 1775–1785.Google Scholar
Hage, J. (2017). Theoretical Foundations for the Responsibility of Autonomous Agents. Artificial Intelligence and Law 25, 255–271. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10506-017-9208-7Google Scholar
Heller, K. J. (2009). The Cognitive Psychology of Mens Rea. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 99, 317–379.Google Scholar
Herzberg, R. D. (2012). Setzt strafrechtliche Schuld ein Vermeidenkönnen voraus? Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft 124(1), 12–63.Google Scholar
Hillenkamp, T. (2015). Hirnforschung, Willensfreiheit und Strafrecht – Versuch einer Zwischenbilanz. Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft 127(1), 10–96.Google Scholar
Hippel, R. (1908). Vorsatz, Fahrlässigkeit, Irrtum. In Birkemeyer, Karl v. (ed.). Vergleichende Darstellung des Deutschen und Ausländischen Strafrechts, Allgemeiner Teil, III. Berlin: Liebmann.Google Scholar
Hörnle, T. (2016). Guilt and Choice in Criminal Law Theory – A Critical Assessment. Bergen Journal of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 4(1), 1–24. https://boap.uib.no/index.php/BJCLCJ/article/view/1023/942Google Scholar
Jakobs, G. (1976). Schuld und Prävention. In Series: Recht und Staat in Geschichte und Gegenwart, No. 452/453. Tübingen. J. C. B. Mohr.Google Scholar
Jescheck, H. H. (1972). Lehrbuch des Strafrechts, Allgemeiner Teil, 2nd ed. Berlin. Duncker und Humblot,Google Scholar
Kindhäuser, U. (2005). Strafgesetzbuch, Lehr- und Praxiskommentar. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
Kurek, Ł. (2018). The Image of Man in Criminal Law and Cognitive Sciences. In Brożek, B., Kurek, Ł, & Stelmach, J. (eds.), Law and Cognitive Sciences. Warsaw: Wolters Kluwer Polska.Google Scholar
Małecki, M. (2019). Przypisanie winy. Podstawy teorii ekskulpantów (The Attribution of Guilt. The Fundaments of Exculpatory Circumstances Theory). Kraków. Krakowski Instytut Prawa Karnego Fundacja (Kraków Institute of Criminal Law Foundation).Google Scholar
Małecki, M., & Zyzik, R. (2014). Poczytalność i wina psychopaty w świetle ewolucyjnych koncepcji genezy psychopatii (Sanity and psychopath’s guilt in light of the evolutionary concepts of the origin of psychopathy). Ruch Prawniczy, Ekonomiczny i Socjologiczny (Journal of Law, Economics and Sociology) 76(3), 161–74. https://pressto.amu.edu.pl/index.php/rpeis/article/view/1799Google Scholar
Marcetus, K. (1928). Der Gedanke der Zumutbarkeit und seine Verwendung in den amtlichen Entwürfen eines Allgemeinen Deutschen Strafgesetzbuches von 1925 und 1927. Breslau: N.p.Google Scholar
McCall, C. (1990). Concepts of Person: An Analysis of Concepts of Person, Self and Human Being. Aldershot and Brookfield: Gower.Google Scholar
McIntosh, C. (ed.) (2013). Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Merkel, G. (2008). Hirnforschung, Sprache und Recht. In Putzke, H. et al. (eds.), Strafrecht zwischen System und Telos, Festschrift für R. D. Herzberg zum 70. Geburtstag. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
Olson, E. T. (1997). The Human Animal: Personal Identity without Psychology. New York: Oxford University Press. .Google Scholar
Patryas, W. (1988). Interpretacja karnistyczna. Studium metodologiczne (Criminal Law Interpretation. A Methodological Study). Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza (Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań Press).Google Scholar
Prinz, W. (2003). Der Mensch ist nicht frei. Das Magazin des Wissenschaftszentrum Nordrhein-Westfalen, 2, 8–20.Google Scholar
Roxin, C. (1974). ‘Schuld’ and ‘Verantwortlichkeit’ als strafrechtliche Systemkategorie. In Jäger, H., Roxin, C., & Burns, H-J. (eds.) Grundfragen der gesamten Strafrechtswissenschaft – Festschrift für Heinrich Henkel zum 70. Geburtstag am 12 September 1973. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Roxin, C. (1979). Zur jüngsten Diskussion über Schuld, Prävention und Verantwortlichkeit im Strafrecht. In Kaufmann, A., Bemmann, G., Krauss, D., & Volk, K. (eds.), Festschrift für Bockelmann. Munich: Beck.Google Scholar
Schaffstein, F. (1933). Die Nichtzumutbarkeit als allgemeiner übergesetzlicher Schuldausschliessungsgrund. Leipzig: Scholl.Google Scholar
Simpson, J., & Weiner, E., eds. (1989). The Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Singer, W. (2003). Ein neues Menschenbild? Gespräche über Hirnforschung. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Stomma, S. (1947). Fikcja winy (Fiction of Guilt). Państwo i Prawo (The State and The Law), 10, 11–26.Google Scholar
Stühler, H. (1999). Die actio libera in causa de lege lata und de lege ferenda: Eine Analyze von Rechtsprechung und Literatur verbundene mit einem Gesetzgebungsvorschlag. Würzburg: Ergon Verlag.Google Scholar
von Liszt, F., & Schmidt, E. (1922). Lehrbuch des deutschen Strafrechts. Berlin: Berlin Vereinigung Wiss. Verl.Google Scholar
Welzel, H. (1969). Das Deutsche Strafrecht: Eine systematische Darstellung. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Williams, B. (1956/1957). Personal Identity and Individuation. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 57, 229–252.Google Scholar
Zoll, A. (1984). Der Einfluβ der Feuerbachschen Teorie auf die polnische Strafrechtswissenschaft. Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Friedrich-Schiller-Universität 4, 507–515.Google Scholar
Zoll, A. (2003). Dyskusja poświęcona art. 9 k.k. (Discussion on the Article 9 of Polish Criminal Code). Czasopismo Prawa Karnego i Nauk Penalnych (Journal of Criminal Law and Penal Studies), 7(1), 84–92. https://czpk.pl/dokumenty/zeszyty/2003/zeszyt1/Dyskusja_nad_prezydenckim_projektem_nowelizacji_Kodeksu_Karnego_-_Dyskusja_w_Krakowie-CZPKiNP_2003-z.1.pdfGoogle Scholar
References
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: DSM-5, 5th ed. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association.Google Scholar
Appelbaum, P. S. (1997). A Theory of Ethics for Forensic Psychiatry. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 25(3), 233–247.Google Scholar
Appelbaum, P. S. (2008). Ethics and Forensic Psychiatry: Translating Principles into Practice. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 36(2), 195–200.Google Scholar
Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2013). Principles of Biomedical Ethics, 7th ed. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bijlsma, J. (2016). Stoornis en strafuitsluiting. Op zoek naar een toetsingskader voor ontoerekenbaarheid. Oisterwijk: Wolf Legal Publishers.Google Scholar
Bijlsma, J. (2018). A New Interpretation of the Modern Two-Pronged Tests for Insanity: Why Legal Insanity Should Not Be a Status Defense. Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy 47, 29–48.Google Scholar
Bijlsma, J., & Meynen, G. (2018). Wat is “aannemelijk”? Over het belang van een helder sanctierechtelijk bewijscriterium. Nederlands Juristenblad 34, 2514–2519.Google Scholar
Burns, J. M., & Swerdlow, R. H. (2003). Right Orbitofrontal Tumor With Pedophilia Symptom and Constructional Apraxia Sign. Archives of Neurology 60(3), 437–440.Google Scholar
Catley, P. (2016). The Future of Neurolaw. European Journal of Current Legal Issues 22(2). http://webjcli.org/index.php/webjcli/article/view/487/651Google Scholar
Eastman, N., Adshead, G., Fox, S., Latman, R., & Whyte, S. (2012). Forensic Psychiatry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ferracuti, S., & Roma, P. (2008). Models of Care for Mentally Disordered Prisoners in Italy. International Journal of Mental Health 37(4), 71–87.Google Scholar
Gillon, R. (1994). Medical Ethics: Four Principles Plus Attention to Scope. British Medical Journal 309(6948), 184–188.Google Scholar
Greely, H. T. (2013). Mind Reading, Neuroscience, and the Law. In Morse, S. J. & Roskies, A. L. (eds.), A Primer on Criminal Law and Neuroscience: A Contribution to the Law and Neuroscience Project, Supported By the MacArthur Foundation. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gröning, L., Haukvik, U., Meynen, G., & Radovic, S. (2020) Constructing Criminal Insanity: The Roles of Legislators, Judges and Experts in Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands. New Journal of European Criminal Law 11(3), 390–410.Google Scholar
Gutheil, T. G. (2005). Ethics and Forensic Psychiatry. In Bloch, S., Chodoff, P., & Green, S. A. (eds.), Psychiatric Ethics, Third Edition. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 345–361.Google Scholar
Haynes, J. D. (2012). Brain Reading. In Richmond, S., Rees, G., & Edwards, S. (eds.), I Know What You’re Thinking: Brain imaging and mental privacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 29–40.Google Scholar
Heyes, C. M., & Frith, C D. (2014). The Cultural Evolution of Mind Reading. Science 344(6190), 1243091. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1243091Google Scholar
Ienca, M., & Andorno, R. (2017). Towards New Human Rights in the Age of Neuroscience and Neurotechnology. Life Sciences, Society and Policy 13(5). https://lsspjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40504-017-0050-1Google Scholar
Just, M. A., Pan, L., Cherkassky, V. L., et al. (2017). Machine Learning of Neural Representations of Suicide and Emotion Concepts Identifies Suicidal Youth. Nature Human Behavior 1, 911–919. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0234-yGoogle Scholar
Kane, R. (2005). A Contemporary Introduction to Free Will. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kooijmans, T., & Meynen, G. (2017). Who Establishes the Presence of a Mental Disorder in Defendants? Medicolegal Considerations on a European Court of Human Rights Case. Front Psychiatry 8, 199. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2017.00199Google Scholar
Libet, B. (1999). Do We Have Free Will? Journal of Consciousness Studies 6(8–9), 47–57.Google Scholar
Libet, B., Gleason, C. A., Wright, E. W., & Pearl, D. K. (1983). Time of Conscious Intention to Act in Relation to Onset of Cerebral Activity (Readiness-Potential): The Unconscious Initiation of a Freely Voluntary Act. Brain 106 (Pt 3), 623–642.Google Scholar
Ligthart, S. L. T. J., Kooijmans, T., & Meynen, G. (2018). Een juridisch criterium voor de ontoerekeningsvatbaarheid: een uitspraak van het gerechtshof Den Haag geanalyseerd. Delikt en Delinkwent 1(9), 101–110.Google Scholar
Linden, D. (2012). Overcoming Self-Report: Possibilities and Limitations of Brain Imaging in Psychiatry. In Richmond, S., Rees, G., & Edwards, S. (eds.), I Know What You’re Thinking: Brain Imaging and Mental Privacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 123–135.Google Scholar
Mason, R. A., & Just, M. A. (2016). Neural Representations of Physics Concepts. Psychological Science 27(6), 904–913. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797616641941Google Scholar
Mele, A. R. (2014). Free: Why Science Hasn’t Disproved Free Will. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Melle, I. (2013). The Breivik Case and What Psychiatrists Can Learn From It. World Psychiatry 12(1), 16–21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20002Google Scholar
Meynen, G. (2016). Legal Insanity: Explorations in Psychiatry, Law, and Ethics: Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
Meynen, G. (2018a). Author’s Response to Peer Commentaries: Brain-Based Mind Reading: Conceptual Clarifications and Legal Applications. Journal of Law and the Biosciences, Advance article.Google Scholar
Meynen, G. (2018b). Forensic Psychiatry and Neurolaw: Description, Developments, and Debates. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2018.04.005Google Scholar
Meynen, G. (2019). Ethical Issues to Consider Before Introducing Neurotechnological Thought Apprehension in Psychiatry. AJOB Neuroscience 10(1), 5–14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/21507740.2019.1595772Google Scholar
Meynen, G. (2020a). The Relevance of Free Will, Rationality, and Aristotle for Legal Insanity. In Waltermann, A., Roef, D., Hage, J., & Jelicic, M. (eds.), Law, Science and Rationality (edited volume). The Hague: Eleven International Publishing.Google Scholar
Meynen, G. (2020b). Neuroscience-Based Psychiatric Assessments of Criminal Responsibility: Beyond Self-Report? Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 29, 446–458.Google Scholar
Moratti, S., & Patterson, D. M. (eds.). (2016). Legal Insanity and the Brain: Science, Law and European Courts; With a Foreword by Justice Andrâas Sajâo, Vice-President of the European Court of Human Rights. Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
Morse, S. J. (1985). Excusing the Crazy: The Insanity Defense Reconsidered. Southern California Law Review 58, 777–836.Google Scholar
Morse, S. J. (2006). Brain Overclaim Syndrome and Criminal Responsibility: A Diagnostic Note. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law 3, 397–312.Google Scholar
Morse, S. J. (2007). The Non-Problem of Free Will in Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology. Behavioral Sciences and the Law 25(2), 203–220. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.744Google Scholar
Morse, S. J. (2016). Legal Insanity in the Age of Neuroscience. In Moratti, S. & Patterson, D. (eds.), Legal Insanity and the Brain: Science, Law, and European Courts. Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
Morse, S. J., & Bonnie, R. J. (2013). Abolition of the Insanity Defense Violates Due Process. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 41(4), 488–495.Google Scholar
Nishimoto, S., Vu, A. T., Naselaris, T., et al. (2011). Reconstructing Visual Experiences From Brain Activity Evoked By Natural Movies. Current Biology 21(19), 1641–1646. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2011.08.031Google Scholar
O’Connor, T. (2018). Free Will (substantive revision, first published 2002). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/Google Scholar
Parmigiani, G., Mandarelli, G., Meynen, G., et al. (2017). Free Will, Neuroscience, and Choice: Towards a Decisional Capacity Model for Insanity Defense Evaluations. Rivista di Psichiatria 52(1), 9–15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1708/2631.27049Google Scholar
Radder, J. A., & Meynen, G. (2013). Does the Brain “Initiate” Freely Willed Processes? A Philosophy of Science Critique of Libet-Type Experiments and Their Interpretation. Theory and Psychology 23(1), 3–21.Google Scholar
Resnick, P. J., & Knoll, J. (2005). Faking It: How to Detect Malingered Psychosis. Current Psychiatry 4(11), 13–25.Google Scholar
Roberts, L. W. (2016). A Clinical Guide to Psychiatric Ethics. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association.Google Scholar
Robinson, D. N. (1996). Wild Beasts and Idle Humours: The Insanity Defense from Antiquity to the Present. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Roskies, A. L. (2013). Brain Imaging Techniques. In Morse, S. J. & Roskies, A. L. (eds.), A Primer on Criminal Law and Neuroscience: A Contribution of the Law and Neuroscience Project, Supported by the MacArthur Foundation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Salize, H. J. & Dressing, H. (eds.). (2005). Placement and Treatment of Mentally Disordered Offenders. Legislation and Practice in the European Union. Lengerich: Papst.Google Scholar
Scarpazza, C., Ferracuti, S., Miolla, A., & Sartori, G. (2018). The Charm of Structural Neuroimaging in Insanity Evaluations: Guidelines to Avoid Misinterpretation of the Findings. Translational Psychiatry 8(1), 227. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-018-0274-8; www.nature.com/articles/s41398-018-0274-8Google Scholar
Scott, C. L., & Resnick, P. J. (2016). Forensic Psychiatry. In Fatemi, S. H. & Clayton, P. J. (eds.), The Medical Basis of Psychiatry. New York: Springer, pp. 799–808.Google Scholar
Simon, R. J., & Ahn-Redding, H. (2006). The Insanity Defense, the World Over. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Slobogin, C. (2017). Neuroscience Nuance: Dissecting the Relevance of Neuroscience in Adjudicating Criminal Culpability. Journal of Law and the Biosciences 4(3), 577–593. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsx033Google Scholar
Slobogin, C. (2018). Introduction to this Special Issue: The Characteristics of Insanity and the Insanity Evaluation Process. Behavioral Sciences and the Law 36(3), 271–275. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2342Google Scholar
Spence, S. (1996). Free Will in the Light of Neuropsychiatry. Philosophy, Psychiatry, & Psychology 3(2), 75–90.Google Scholar
Stone, A. A. (1984). The Ethical Boundaries of Forensic Psychiatry: A View from the Ivory Tower. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 12, 209–219.Google Scholar
Van der Wolf, M., & Van Marle, H. (2018). Legal Approaches to Criminal Responsibility of Mentally Disordered Offenders in Europe. In Goethals, K. (ed.), Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology in Europe. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
Van Impelen, A., Merckelbach, H., Jelicic, M. & Merten, T. (2014). The Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology (SIMS): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. The Clinical Neuropsychologist 28(8), 1336–1365. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2014.984763Google Scholar
Welie, J. V., & Welie, S. P. (2001). Patient Decision Making Competence: Outlines of a Conceptual Analysis. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 4(2), 127–138.Google Scholar
Wright, R. G. (2014). Pulling on the Thread of the Insanity Defense. Villanova Law Review 59 221, 221–242.Google Scholar
Zhao, L., & Ferguson, G. (2013). Understanding China’s Mental Illness Defense. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology 24(5), 634–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
References
Criminal Procedure Rules 2015 UK SI (2015) No 1490 (L.18).Google Scholar
Gardner, J., & Macklem, T. (2001). Compassion without Respect? Nine Fallacies in R. v. Smith. Criminal Law Review 623, 623–35.Google Scholar
Kogel, de, K., & Westgeest, E. (2015). Neuroscientific and Behavioural Genetic Information in Criminal Cases in the Netherlands. Journal of Law and the Biosciences 2(3), 580–605.Google Scholar
Law Commission for England and Wales. (2013). Criminal Liability: Insanity and Automatism – a Discussion Paper. Retrieved from: www.lawcom.gov.uk/project/insanity-and-automatism/.Google Scholar
Mackay, R. D. (1995). Mental Condition Defences in the Criminal Law. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Mackay, R. D., Mitchell, B. J., & Howe, L. (2006). Yet More Facts About the Insanity Defence. Criminal Law Review (May), 399–411.Google Scholar
Moratti, S., & Patterson, D. (eds.) (2016). Legal Insanity and the Brain: Science, Law and European Courts. Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
Morse, S. J. (1985). Excusing the Crazy: The Insanity Defense Reconsidered. Southern California Law Review 58(3), 777–838.Google Scholar
Walker, N. (1968). Crime and Insanity in England. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
White, M. D. (ed.) (2017). The Insanity Defense: Multidisciplinary Views on Its History, Trends and Controversies. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.Google Scholar
Cases
H. v. United Kingdom App No 15023/89.Google Scholar
M’Naghten’s Case (1843) 10 Clark and Finnelly 200, (1843) 8 ER 718, [1843–60] All ER Rep 229.Google Scholar
R. v. Sharif [2010] EWCA Crim 1709.Google Scholar
R. v. Smith [2000] 3 WLR 654 (HL).Google Scholar
R. v. Windle [1952] 2 QB 826.Google Scholar
Whyte (1988) 2 SCR 3 (1988) 51 DLR (4th) 481.Google Scholar