@article{ref1,
title="Neuroscience and the law: philosophical differences and practical constraints",
journal="Behavioral sciences and the law",
year="2009",
author="Martell, Daniel A.",
volume="27",
number="2",
pages="123-136",
abstract="Controversies surrounding the value of neuroscience as forensic evidence are explored from the perspective of the philosophy of mind, as well as from a practical analysis of the state of the scientific research literature. At a fundamental philosophical level there are profound differences in how law and neuroscience view the issue of criminal responsibility along the continuum from free will to determinism. At a more practical level, significant limitations in the current state of neuroimaging research constrain its ability to inform legal decision-making. Scientifically supported and unsupported forensic applications for brain imaging are discussed, and recommendations for forensic report writing are offered.<p /><p>Language: en</p>",
language="en",
issn="0735-3936",
doi="10.1002/bsl.853",
url="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bsl.853"
}