Progetto Cittadinanza ScientificaProgetto Cittadinanza ScientificaUniversità degli Studi Magna Graecia di Catanzaro

25 Marzo 2010Catanzaro

Amedeo SantosuossoAmedeo SantosuossoCorte d’Appello di Milano

Interdepartmental Research Center ECLSC, Università di Pavia

amedeo.santosuosso@unipv.it

http://www.unipv.it/ECLSC

Le neuroscience e il dirittoLe neuroscience e il diritto

University of Pavia

Court of Appeal, Milano

ENLSC

Neuroscienze e legge

• Legge • Diritto

•Law•Act (of Parliament)•Bill •Statute

Neuroscience and the LawNeuroscienze e legge diritto

Diritto e neuroscienze

Neuroscienze

• Neuroscience (EN) è = a Neuroscienze (IT) ?

• Countable/uncountable ?• Scienze cognitive • Neuropsicologia • Neurogenetica• .......................

Diritto

• Penale• Civile• Diritto del lavoro• Diritto dei consumatori• Costituzionale (confini

biologici dell’individuo)• ..........

NANOTECHNOLOGYBIOTECHNOLOGY

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY COGNITIVE SCIENCE

The present

scientific

and

technological

frontier

Tutto ciò ha un impatto sul diritto?

• Quando

• In quali settori

•Diritto penale

•Diritto civile

•Confini biologici dell’individuo

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

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

The moment that neuroscience began to transform the American legal system... the early the early 1990s1990s

Jeffrey Rosen, NYT, March 11, 2007

Some recent criminal cases (1981)(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 decadesthe 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 GlimcherCurrent Opinion in Neurobiology 2006, 16:130–134

brain death

Weinstein case

Hinckley case

neuroscientific studies

When the debate about neuroscience and the law began?When the debate about neuroscience and the law began?

...

2004

2006

2006

Vol.33, 2-3, 2007

BRAIN IMAGING AND THE LAW

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 responsibilityCriminal 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)

Law - Science interaction“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)

Scuola classica a) Libero arbitrio

b) Imputabilitàc) Responsabilità moraled) Pena determinata (funzione

del reato)

e) Retribuzione (con valenza etica)

Teoria del reatoreato

Scuola positivaa) Determinismo (biologico e

sociale)b) Pericolosità socialec) Responsabilità legaled) Temibilità del reo e pena

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

e) Difesa sociale

Teoria della penapena

Maggior limite: non dà risposte per i soggetti non capaci

Maggior limite: non critica i processi di criminalizzazione

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

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 volereNessuno 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 menteVizio totale di menteNon 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 menteVizio parziale di menteChi, 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.

The COMMON LAW contextThe 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

The COMMON LAW contextThe 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).

Cognitive neuroscience holds the promise of explaining the operations of the mind in terms of the physical operations of the brain.

Two main questionsTwo main questions

1. Will our emerging understanding of the physical causes of human (mis)behaviour have a transformative effect on the law ?

2. Is this impact exceptional?

• 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 attitudesTwo main attitudes

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

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

2002

Caso Malek

What about neuroscience and judges ?

A further new problem

La discussione sulla responsabilità penale non è né esaustiva, in termini teorici, nè del tutto produttiva a fornte dei nuovi problemi.

A provisional not exhaustive survey of the neuroscience applications on human body includes:

Brain-machine-web connections and the realization of cyborgs, which are not a futuristic issues anymore.Scientific methods of selection may be used by schools or by firms using brain-scanning tests.The brain of stressed people might be improved (e.g. drugs as Provigil or Ritalin). The new neuroscientific technologies may now undermine the concept of brain death.

NATURE

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,

and the same question of free will may not be at the forefront any longer. We may discover that individual’s will is intertwined with wills of other persons.

Should we move from the concept of individual (free) will toward association’s (free) will?

A. DEFINIZIONE DEL TEMA (framing the issue)

B. GLI ASPETTI DI MAGGIORE RILIEVO

C. UN NODO DECISIVO

The impact of CT on legal assumptionsthe individual

The individual and her/his (biological) boundaries

• As a constitutional matter Where do we draw the boundary line of club membership?

• As a matter of liberty What are the requisites and the performance of cognitive liberty?

• As a matter of self-determinationMay I draw my personal biological boundary line?

• Beyond self-determination How am I interconnected with other people and machines?

The impact of CT on legal assumptionsb) info and the individual

Brain – MachineBrain – (Machine) – BrainBrain Web (Collective Brain)

nella versione del volume attualmente disponibile on-line sia stato espunto il diritto, e si possa leggere: “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 ???????

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

……and other crucial questionsand other crucial questions:

•Whether neuroimaging evidence should be admissible as proof of competency, insanity, mental illness, and other forms of mental impairment in both the civil and criminal context.

• Whether neuroimaging should be used in interrogations of suspected criminals and terror suspects. If so, should these results be admissible in trials or tribunals?

• Can neuroimaging reliably prove when individuals are lying or when they have knowledge of a disputed matter? If so, what considerations should govern their use in trials?

•Should neuroimaging be available and admissible for defendants who claim they were wrongfully convicted and allege neuroimaging can prove their innocence?

• Should neuroimaging be admissible in trials in which a party claims neurological harm due to trauma, toxins, intoxicants, or vaccines?

Source: J. Campbell Moriarty, Flickering Admissibility: Neuroimaging Evidence in the U.S. Courts, Behav. Sci. Law 26: 29–49 (2008)

Amedeo SantosuossoCorte d’Appello di Milano

Centro di Ricerca Interdipartimentale ECLSC - Università degli studi di Pavia amedeo.santosuosso@unipv.it

http://www.unipv.it/ECLSC

Grazie !

Which kind of impact neuroscience is Which kind of impact neuroscience is going to have on our legal going to have on our legal

categories?categories?