신경(형)법학 이해를 위한 기본 설명

The rise of neuroscience has caused serious concerns in the law where theknowledge of brain process can provide many possibilities. The courts in theUSA and other countries have begun a review of how such evidence can be usedin legal cases. Such a interests in neurolaw could draw attention from manyrelated fields like criminal psychology, policy and forensics. The number ofneurolaw cases rose to be discussed in the courts year by year. Judges andlawyers urgently needed educating in neuroscience: many brain studies on"criminal minds" draw certain conclusions to be applied to individuals. If we lookat functional brain imaging of psychopaths, there's emerging evidence thatpsychopaths psychologically show some abnormality in their brains. Nonethelessit doesn't mean that a brain scan says he's got an abnormal brain. It is reallypremature to judge by reading brain imaging. Furthermore legal system shouldtake these neuroscientific outlooks into its own interpretation scheme. Traditionally law is accustomed to reconstruct not the fact itself, but to examinethe statements, which are adversarily produced. One problem facing the legalsystem centres on the definition of responsibility. In a number of cases,defendants have argued that they cannot be held responsible because their brainsmade them compulsively commit a crime. For the good understanding ofneurolaw, it is necessary not only to have scientific knowledge on neurology orneuropsychology but definitely also to review the context of mind pholosophyand legal philosophy as well. To firmly understand the frame difference betweenthe brain and the mind is important in this field. In a near future, neuroethics turns into a solid part of neurolaw.