Corso

Diritto, scienza, nuove tecnologie

Università degli Studi di Pavia Dipartimento di Giurisprudenza

Anno Accademico 2012-13

Prof. Amedeo Santosuosso

a.santosuosso@unipv.it

La stampa e l'utilizzo di lucidi e di materiali messi a disposizione sono

consentiti esclusivamente per le finalità del corso.

Ogni altro utilizzo deve essere preventivamente autorizzato.

Lezione

8 aprile 2013

Neuro&Law (a)

Neuroscience Law

Neuroscience Law

A winter school on Neuroscience and Law

Neuroscience & the Law: cognitive neuroscience

• Neuroscience investigates the brain and

nervous system, focusing on structures,

functions, processes within this system and its

interactions with other bodily systems.

• Within this field, cognitive neuroscience (CNS) investigates the relationship between the nervous system and mental processes, looking for links between the brain and the various powers, abilities, and capacities that we associate with the mind and mental life such as decision making, knowledge, memory, and consciousness.

• Many of the issues at the interaction of law and neuroscience concern cognitive neuroscience because the law is typically interested in these mental processes and their roles in human behavior.

Neuroscience Law

Neuroscience Law

Mind – brain • Dualism • Monism • Third position ?

Neuroscience Law

A winter school on Neuroscience and Law

Neuroscience Law

http://www.unipv-lawtech.eu/lang1/winter-school-2013-program.html

“The subject of this Essay is not the so-called Liberty of the Will […] but Civil, or Social Liberty: the nature and limits of the power which can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual”.

Mill J.S. (1859), On liberty

“The subject of this Essay is not the so-called Liberty of the Will […] but Civil, or Social Liberty: the nature and limits of the power which can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual”.

Mill J.S. (1859), On liberty

Free will ?

Agency (the self as an agent) ?

Actions v. thoughts:

is mind external to law, by definition ?

US Constitution - Amendment 1 Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.

ITALY Constitution - Art. 21. Tutti hanno diritto di manifestare liberamente il proprio pensiero con la parola, lo scritto e ogni altro mezzo di diffusione.

[…]

philosophy

Free will ?

Agency (the self as an agent) ?

Actions v. thoughts:

is mind external to law, by definition ?

US Constitution - Amendment 1 Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.

ITALY Constitution - Art. 21. Tutti hanno diritto di manifestare liberamente il proprio pensiero con la parola, lo scritto e ogni altro mezzo di diffusione.

[…]

philosophy

• Cognitive Neuroscience • Neurotechniques and the boundary of

self (BCI, Robots etc.) • Clinical diagnosis of disorders of

consciousness and neuroimaging techniques (PVS)

• Behavioural genetics

• Caselaw • Neuroscience and criminal law • Neuroscience and civil law • Neuroscience and constitutional law • Multilingualism • Databasing • Human agency

Scientific and legal conceptual models Evolution theory, synthetic biology, evolutionary law

Neuroscience and media Neuroethics

Institutional Design, Game Theory and Behavioural Economics

The human brain has been at the center of medicolegal debates since the late 1960s G.J.Annas, AJLM, vol.33 (2007)

The moment that neuroscience began to transform the American legal system... the early 1990s

Jeffrey Rosen, NYT, March 11, 2007

Some recent criminal cases (1981) highlight the difficulties faced by judges who must determine whether brain images can be admitted...

L.S. Khosbin & S.Khosbin, AJLM, vol.33 (2007)

During the past two decades, neuroscientific studies have begun to meet the challenge of understanding of cognitive function. ...These physiological insights will challenge, in turn, legal systems

B. Garland - P. W Glimcher Current Opinion in Neurobiology 2006, 16:130–134

brain death

Weinstein case

Hinckley case

neuroscientific studies

When the debate about neuroscience and the law began?

...

2004

2006

2006

Vol.33, 2-3, 2007

BRAIN IMAGING AND THE LAW

nella versione del volume attualmente disponibile on-line è stato

espunto il diritto, e si legge: “Neuroethics may be defined as the

study of the moral and ethical questions involved in applying new

brain-related scientific findings, such as genetics, brain imaging,

disease diagnosis and prediction, and how the medical, insurance,

and governmental leaders will face them”

conferenza Neuroethics: Mapping the Field, svoltasi il 13-14 giugno

2002 a San Francisco (Stanford University e University of California)

Neuroetica: “lo studio delle questioni etiche, giuridiche e

sociali che sorgono quando le scoperte scientifiche sul

cervello vengono portate nella pratica medica, nelle

interpretazioni giuridiche e nella politica sanitaria e

sociale.

Etica/bioetica/neuroetica/biodiritto/neurodiritto...

Neuroscience - Ethics - Law

Bioethics

Biolaw

Neuroethics

Neurolaw ?

Roboethics

Robolaw?

Nanoethics

Nanolaw ???????

The free will approach The idea that a more complete understanding of the neural mechanism for voluntary decision-making might undermine the legal notion of accountability. Typical related questions: • Would brain scans influence a court’s decision? • Will brain imaging subvert the current nosography

of mental diseases? • Is free will still alive? • …

The free will approach is neither exhaustive, in theoretical terms, nor able to address some important aspects of the new reality of interaction between neuroscience and law.

23

Converging Technologies and legal assumptions

Biology

Genetics

Biotechnologies

Behavioural genetics

InfoBioGroups

Collective Brain

Neurosciences

Law&Brain

Drugs Pollution ...

Atomic manipulation

Nano devices

Why such a great interest toward neuroscience ?

Genetics – reproduction – human hood - sexuality

Neuroscience – brain/mind – liberty/individuality

Charles Darwin: humans are not so separate from all other living organisms

+ Neuroscience: mind is not something added to human/non human bodies

Neuroscience involve

• The mental representation of ourselves

• The development and adaptation of our ideas about

• what is a human being, a society and the rules

we produce (law)

• The concept of democracy and social order

• The concept of deviance

• … and more.

26

I punti di impatto

Il diritto penale (responsabilità)

Il diritto penale (graduazione pena e tipo di risposta)

Il processo: la prova scientifica e il brain imaging

La capacità civile e il consenso informato

La quantificazione del danno (aspetti psichici)

Altri aspetti

• techniques for the objective investigation of subjective states such as pain, memory, and truth-telling;

• evidentiary issues for admitting neuroscience facts and approaches in court proceedings;

• juvenile offenders;

• addiction;

• mental health;

• emotion;

• the neuroeconomics of decision making and cooperation

Goodenough- Tucker , 2010

• free will

• Responsibility

• moral judgment

• punishment

• PVS and Brain Death • Informed consent • Will and contract • Mental capacity • Brain Machine Interfaces • Rehabilitation • Enhancement (e.g. drugs

as Provigil or Ritalin). • ……

1. Aging Neuroscience 2. Autonomic Neuroscience 3. Behavioral Neuroscience 4. Cellular Neuroscience 5. Computational Neuroscience 6. Decision Neuroscience 7. Enteric Neuroscience 8. Evolutionary Neuroscience 9. Human Neuroscience 10. Integrative Neuroscience 11. Molecular Neuroscience 12. Neural Circuits 13. Neuroanatomy

14. Neuroendocrine Science 15. Neuroenergetics 16. Neuroengineering 17. Neurogenesis 18. Neurogenomics 19. Neuroinformatics 20. Neuromorphic Engineering 21. Neuropharmacology 22. Neuroprosthetics 23. Neurorobotics 24. Synaptic Neuroscience 25. Systems Biology 26. Systems Neuroscience

Frontiers in Neuroscience. The Mission Statement: sectors

Thus the area of impact of neuroscience is wider than usually considered. The neuro-induced redefinition of the biological and mental boundaries of the individual gains the priority,

The problem

Understanding human behavior

What social response to deviant behavior

Neuroscience

Neurotecniques

Brain imaging

Behavioural genetics

behavior

Internal/biological approach

External/social approach

34

Alcuni riferimenti temporali

La scoperta della malattia mentale nel processo da fine Settecento

Il dibattito freniatria-diritto e la sistemazione di fine Ottocento della follia parziale

L’uomo entità biologica soggetta alle stesse leggi del mondo animale (Darwin)

Does all this change the game between psychiatry and

the law?

Does all this change the agreement between psychiatry

and the law as settled in XIX century?

• a new twist of well known old problems ?

• a completely new problem ?

Responsabilità penale - psichiatria

Neuroscience impacts on psychiatry both as medical discipline and

in its relationship with the law and the judiciary.

Neuroscience

Psychiatry

Psychiatry - Law

Old questions come to a new life.

PSYCHIATRY AND LAW THE BACKGROUND

Criminal responsibility

XVIII Century

(Initially) defined by Canon Law

Free will - Secularization of the concept (Kant)

(At the end) Crime Sin

XIX Century

Delirium insanity: psychiatry is accepted in criminal trials.

Insanity without deliurim: the real question!

Psychiatrists v. judges

Judges’ objection to the role of psychiatrists in cases of diminished capacity

Free will and retribution (punishment = crime) v. Social defence

In Italy

1874: Società di Freniatria (Italian Psychiatry Association)

1875: Rivista della Società di Freniatria (Journal of Psychiatrist Association)

At the end of the Century, the Ministry of Justice recognized the

participation of psychiatry to the drafting of Italian Penal Code as necessary.

What was at stake:

- diminished capacity;

- man as a biological entity subject to the same rules as the

animal world (Darwin); Positive School/Scuola Positiva (Cesare

Lombroso et al.)

v.

- Scuola Classica del diritto penale (Francesco Carrara)

The COMMON LAW context

Psychiatrists and judges debate on the necessity mens rea at the moment of the crime Insanity Defense as reason to exclude criminal responsibility

40

Codice Zanardelli (1889)

Inserimento della infermità di mente e della imputabilità grandemente scemata per la follia morale.

Opposizione e critiche di principio e sostanziale accettazione pratica

Codice penale italiano “Rocco”(1930)

Art. 85 - Capacità d'intendere e di volere

Nessuno può essere punito per un fatto preveduto dalla legge come reato, se, al

momento in cui lo ha commesso, non era imputabile.

È imputabile chi ha la capacità di intendere e di volere.

Art. 88 - Vizio totale di mente

Non è imputabile chi, nel momento in cui ha commesso il fatto, era, per infermità, in

tale stato di mente da escludere la capacità di intendere o di volere.

Art. 89 - Vizio parziale di mente

Chi, nel momento in cui ha commesso il fatto, era, per infermità, in tale stato di mente

da scemare grandemente, senza escluderla, la capacità d'intendere o di volere,

risponde del reato commesso; ma la pena è diminuita.

41

Scuola classica a) Libero arbitrio

b) Imputabilità c) Responsabilità morale d) Pena determinata

(funzione del reato)

e) Retribuzione (con valenza etica)

Teoria del reato Imputabilità

Scuola positiva

a) Determinismo (biologico e sociale)

b) Pericolosità sociale

c) Responsabilità legale

d) Temibilità del reo e pena indeterminata (funzione del reo: tipo criminale, tipo d’autore)

e) Difesa sociale

Teoria della pena

Imputazione

Maggior limite: non dà risposte per soggetti non capaci

Maggior limite: non critica i processi di criminalizzazione

42

Opposte esigenze sottese all’istituto dell’imputabilità

a) Istanza neoidealistica tesa a valorizzare, sulla scorta del

razionalismo metafisico, il principio della libertà del

volere

b) Il riconoscimento del determinismo psichico, con la

contestuale affermazione della concezione difensiva della

pena

43

“i legislatori, i magistrati, i giurisperiti ... considerando sempre gli uomini come fatti d’anima solamente e d’un medesimo stampo ... e la pena come unico rimedio al male morale, non giovarono certo alla causa dell’umanità e della giustizia...” “il reo studiato coscienziosamente, scrupolosamente, non nel momento solo del reato, ma in tutta la sua vita antecedente, non nel suo essere morale soltanto, ma nella sua organica complessione, nelle sue imperfezioni fisiche, ne’ morbosi germi ereditari ... quali aspetti nuovi dee presentare all’uomo di mente e di cuore, quali sentimenti nuovi e nuove idee non deve ispirare? ...il nostro giornale si presenta ai giurisperiti, ai magistrati, a’ legislatori, e dice loro: venite con noi, guardate, dimandate, tastate, pesate, misurate, contate ... e poi deciderete ... se vi sono altre vie per assicurare la società, e modi migliori, per correggere il male, del carcere e della forca”.

Rivista sperimentale di freniatria e di Medicina Legale (n.1, 1875), Direttore Carlo Levi “Discorso che potrebbe servire ad uso di programma” (Editoriale)

44

• Art. 88. Vizio totale di mente. Non è imputabile chi, nel momento in cui ha commesso il fatto, era, per infermità, in tale stato

di mente da escludere la capacità d'intendere o di volere. • Art. 89. Vizio parziale di mente. Chi, nel momento in cui ha commesso il fatto, era, per infermità, in tale stato di mente da

scemare grandemente, senza escluderla, la capacità d'intendere o di volere, risponde del reato commesso; ma la pena è diminuita.

Corte di Cassazione, S.U., 25.01.2005-08.03.2005, n. 9163: inclusione dei disturbi della personalità nel concetto di

infermità, ampliando i confini della nozione di imputabilità. Va ricercata la concreta attitudine a compromettere

gravemente la capacità di percepire il disvalore del fatto commesso, nonché a recepire il significato del trattamento punitivo

L’esperto scientifico e l’interpretazione della prova neuroscientifica nel sistema penale italiano

45

L’esperto (neuro)scientifico

Sistemi di Common Law

Difesa

Accusa

Giudice (Judge)

Valutazione dell’ammissibilità della

prova scientifica

In caso di ammissibilità

Expert witness (difesa)

Expert witness (accusa)

Giuria che emetterà il

verdetto (black box) CROSS

EXAMINATION

The COMMON LAW context

UK

- 1843: Daniel M’Naghten case (M’Naghten Test)

insanity which excludes his/her capacity of understanding the nature of his action or its being a crime: the defendant cannot be convicted

USA

• M’Naghten rule and its variants (Durham Test...)

• 1962, the American Law Institute publishes its Model Penal Code

• ALI Test (it links “mental desease of defect” to an individual’s capacity to

appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or conform his conduct to the

requirements of the law)

• 1982: Hinckley case (after his insanity acquittal, 25 States use a strict or

modified M’Naghten rule, 19 states and the Federal Government use a modified

ALI Test; 4 states returned to a traditional mens rea defense by abolishing the

insanity defense).

• Roper v. Simmons (125 S. Ct. 1183 (2005)), the court ruled to prohibit

capital punishment for juvenile offenders under the age of 18. The opinion of the

Supreme Court referred specifically to ‘‘the scientific and sociological studies’’

cited by the respondent and amici as confirming a ‘‘lack of maturity and an

underdeveloped sense of responsibility’’ in the young (several of these amici

specifically employed neurobiological evidence to support their arguments).

The impact

• Jury: indirect/emotional effect (colours, images)

• Expert witness testimony v. Court appointed expert (CTU)

Diminished Responsibility Defense (originally, jurors used to exhort the jugde for a reduction of sentence in case of partial insanity of the guilty) In USA, D.R.D. is now provided by The Federal Sentencing Guidelines The debate is going on :

Stephen Morse (Diminished rationality, diminished responsibility, 2003) proposes that the criminal law should include a new generic, doctrinal mitigating excuse of partial responsibility that would apply to all crimes and would be determined by the trier of the fact: “Guilty but partially responsible (G.P.R.)”

“For the law, neuroscience change nothing and everything. Free will as we ordinarily understand it is an illusion generated by our cognitive architecture. Retributivist notions of criminal responsibility ultimately depend on this illusion and, if we are lucky, they will give way to consequentialist ones, thus radically transforming our approach to criminal justice”.

J. Green, J. Cohen, For the law, neuroscience change nothing and everything, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B, 2004

Two main attitudes

Brains do not commit crimes; people commit crimes. ...a cognitive pathology, “Brain Overclaim Syndrome [BOS],” that often afflicts those inflamed by the fascinating new discoveries in the neurosciences. [...] the signs and symptoms of BOS, the essential feature of which is to make claims about the implications of neuroscience for criminal responsibility that cannot be conceptually or empirically sustained.

S. J. Morse, Brain Overclaim Syndrome and Criminal Responsibility: A Diagnostic Note, Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper Series (2003)

Beyond retribution ?

What degree of scientific “certainty” do we require in order

to accept neuroscience (and other scientific contributions) in

the Courts ?

Present neuroimaging techniques give researchers the possibility to see

structures of the living brain and discern structural and functional

anomalies

Hypothesis about connections between

physical and mental activities and

applications on criminal law:

Criminal

responsibility Criminal

rehabilitation

Social defence

After judgment and sentencing: what to do with guilty people?

Does neuroscience (or any other science) offer any chance of treatment ?

Is treatment of antisocial behaviour desirable ?

Is it socially and ethically acceptable ?

Is there any difference between social, psychological, surgical, pharmacological intervention on people?

Is informed consent necessary ?

Is it a sufficient protection ?

A “new” problem