Search

Neuroscience has already changed the understanding of how intent forms and is acted upon, how an individual's cognitive processes shape behavior, and how bio-psychosocial history and neurodevelopmental approaches provide information that has been largely missing from the assessment of intent. In this paper, we first review the state of forensic assessment of mental condition and intent, focused primarily on the weaknesses of the current approach. In Section 2, we discuss neurobehavioral forensic assessment, which is a neuroscience-based approach. Section 3 focuses on the changing understanding of mental illness and how neuroscience is pushing law towards a functional capacity-and-ability model and away from a diagnostic cut-off model. Finally, in Sections 4 and 5, we turn to the role of social and environmental context in shaping behavior and propose a model of behavioral intent in line with the scientific evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Criminal responsibility in the American legal system requires the presence of an actus reus-a harmful act that was committed voluntarily-and a mens rea, or guilty mind. Courts frequently consider questions surrounding mens rea but rarely question whether an act was committed voluntarily. Thus, courts presume that acts have been committed voluntarily and with an ill will; retribution, which serves the primary basis for punishment in the USA, relies on this presumption. Research in neuroscience and the behavioral sciences, however, suggests that this presumption is flawed and not sufficiently robust to justify punishment that is grounded in retribution. In this paper we discuss the presumption of voluntariness and free will inherent in the law, provide examples of how the courts have conflated actus reus and mens rea and the consequences of doing so, and the implications of neuroscience and behavioral science research for actus reus (also known as the voluntary act requirement). Finally, we propose re-conceptualizing punishment within a consequentialist, empirically-based framework that does not rely on folk psychological notions about human behavior and reinvigorates the actus reus as the foundational requirement for legal responsibility. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]