Diapositiva 1 - cittadinanzascientifica

Progetto Cittadinanza Scientifica
Università degli Studi Magna Graecia di Catanzaro
25 Marzo 2010
Catanzaro
Le neuroscience e il diritto
Amedeo Santosuosso
Corte d’Appello di Milano
Interdepartmental Research Center ECLSC, Università di Pavia
[email protected]
http://www.unipv.it/ECLSC
 Court of Appeal, Milano
 ENLSC
University of Pavia 
Neuroscienze e legge
• Legge
• Diritto
•Law
•Act (of Parliament)
•Bill
•Statute
Neuroscience and the Law
Neuroscienze 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)
• ..........
The present
scientific
and
technological
frontier
NANOTECHNOLOGY
BIOTECHNOLOGY
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
COGNITIVE SCIENCE
Tutto ciò ha un impatto sul diritto?
• Quando
• In quali settori
•Diritto penale
•Diritto civile
•Confini biologici dell’individuo
• Etica/bioetica/neuroetica/biodiritto/neurodiritto...
When the debate about neuroscience and the law began?
The human brain has been at the center of medicolegal debates since the late 1960s
G.J.Annas, AJLM, vol.33 (2007)
 brain death
The moment that neuroscience began to transform the American legal system... the early
1990s
 Weinstein case
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)
 Hinckley case
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
 neuroscientific studies
Current Opinion in Neurobiology 2006, 16:130–134
2004
2006
2006
BRAIN IMAGING
AND THE LAW
Vol.33, 2-3, 2007
...
Responsabilità penale - psichiatria
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 ?
Old questions come to a new life.
Psychiatry
Neuroscience
Psychiatry - Law
Neuroscience impacts on psychiatry both as medical discipline and
in its relationship with the law and the judiciary.
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)
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)
a)
Scuola classica
Libero arbitrio
a)
b)
c)
d)
Imputabilità
Responsabilità morale
Pena determinata (funzione
del reato)
b)
c)
d)
e)
Retribuzione (con valenza
etica)
e)
Teoria del reato
Maggior limite: non dà risposte
per i soggetti non capaci
Scuola positiva
Determinismo (biologico e
sociale)
Pericolosità sociale
Responsabilità legale
Temibilità del reo e pena
indeterminata (funzione del
reo: tipo criminale, tipo
d’autore)
Difesa sociale
Teoria della pena
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 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.
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
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).
Cognitive neuroscience holds the promise of explaining the operations of
the mind in terms of the physical operations of the brain.
Two 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?
The impact
• 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).
• 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.)”
Two main attitudes
“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
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
Social defence
Criminal
rehabilitation
A “new” problem
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 ?
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 assumptions
the 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-determination
May 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 assumptions
b) info and the individual
Brain – Machine
Brain – (Machine) – Brain
Brain Web (Collective Brain)
Etica/bioetica/neuroetica/biodiritto/neurodiritto...
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.
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”
Neuroscience - Ethics - Law
Bioethics
Biolaw
Neuroethics
Neurolaw ?
Roboethics
Robolaw?
Nanoethics
Nanolaw ???????
A “new” problem
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 ?
…and 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)
Grazie !
Amedeo Santosuosso
Corte d’Appello di Milano
Centro di Ricerca Interdipartimentale ECLSC - Università degli studi di Pavia
[email protected]
http://www.unipv.it/ECLSC
Which kind of impact neuroscience is
going to have on our legal categories?