Progetto Cittadinanza Scientifica Progetto Cittadinanza Scientifica Università degli Studi Magna Graecia di Catanzaro 25 Marzo 2010 Catanzaro Amedeo Santosuosso Corte dAppello di Milano Interdepartmental Research Center ECLSC, Università di Pavia Le 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 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 dellindividuo)

NANOTECHNOLOGY BIOTECHNOLOGY 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 dellindividuo Etica/bioetica/neuroetica/biodiritto/neurodiritto...

the late 1960s The human brain has been at the center of medicolegal debates since the late 1960s G.J.Annas, AJLM, vol.33 (2007) the early 1990s The moment that neuroscience began to transform the American legal system... the early 1990s Jeffrey Rosen, NYT, March 11, 2007 (1981) 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) the past two decades 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?

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 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 danima solamente e dun medesimo stampo... e la pena come unico rimedio al male morale, non giovarono certo alla causa dellumanità 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 alluomo 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)Imputabilità c)Responsabilità morale d)Pena determinata (funzione del reato) e)Retribuzione (con valenza etica) reato Teoria del reato 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 dautore) e)Difesa sociale pena Teoria della pena Maggior limite: non dà risposte per i soggetti non capaci Maggior limite: non critica i processi di criminalizzazione

Opposte esigenze sottese allistituto dellimputabilità 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 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. Vizio totale di mente Art 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. Vizio parziale di mente Art 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 : Daniel MNaghten case (MNaghten 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 MNaghten 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 individuals 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 MNaghten 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?

Roper v. Simmons ( 125 S. Ct (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

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 individuals will is intertwined with wills of other persons. Should we move from the concept of individual (free) will toward associations (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)

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 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 questions …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 )

Amedeo Santosuosso Corte dAppello di Milano Centro di Ricerca Interdipartimentale ECLSC - Università degli studi di Pavia Grazie !

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