These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
494 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18400929)
1. Can neurological evidence help courts assess criminal responsibility? Lessons from law and neuroscience. Aharoni E; Funk C; Sinnott-Armstrong W; Gazzaniga M Ann N Y Acad Sci; 2008 Mar; 1124():145-60. PubMed ID: 18400929 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Seeing responsibility: can neuroimaging teach us anything about moral and legal responsibility? Wasserman D; Johnston J Hastings Cent Rep; 2014; Spec No():S37-49. PubMed ID: 24634084 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. [Neuroscience and criminal law: new perspectives for old problems]. Mercurio EN Vertex; 2009; 20(83):62-70. PubMed ID: 19434302 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Impulse control and criminal responsibility: lessons from neuroscience. Penney S Int J Law Psychiatry; 2012; 35(2):99-103. PubMed ID: 22261322 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Forensic psychiatry, neuroscience, and the law. Silva JA J Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 2009; 37(4):489-502. PubMed ID: 20018997 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. In defense of free will: Neuroscience and criminal responsibility. Nestor PG Int J Law Psychiatry; 2019; 65():101344. PubMed ID: 29685647 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Neuroscience and legal determination of criminal responsibility. Eastman N; Campbell C Nat Rev Neurosci; 2006 Apr; 7(4):311-8. PubMed ID: 16552416 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Brain lesions and their implications in criminal responsibility. Batts S Behav Sci Law; 2009; 27(2):261-72. PubMed ID: 19319837 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. New neuroscience, old problems: legal implications of brain science. Morse SJ Cerebrum; 2004; 6(4):81-90. PubMed ID: 15986539 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. [The normative concept of guilt in criminal law between freedom of will and neurobiological determinism]. Czerner F Arch Kriminol; 2006; 218(5-6):129-57. PubMed ID: 17217181 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Reliability of repeated forensic evaluations of legal sanity. Kacperska I; Heitzman J; Bąk T; Leśko AW; Opio M Int J Law Psychiatry; 2016; 44():24-9. PubMed ID: 26346685 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Factors associated with experts' opinions regarding criminal responsibility in The Netherlands. Barendregt M; Muller E; Nijman H; de Beurs E Behav Sci Law; 2008; 26(5):619-31. PubMed ID: 18788082 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Neuroscience and the law: philosophical differences and practical constraints. Martell DA Behav Sci Law; 2009; 27(2):123-36. PubMed ID: 19267425 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Applications of neuroscience in criminal law: legal and methodological issues. Meixner JB Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep; 2015; 15(2):513. PubMed ID: 25475493 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. The brain-disordered defendant: neuroscience and legal insanity in the twenty-first century. Redding RE Am Univ Law Rev; 2006 Oct; 56(1):51-127. PubMed ID: 17051689 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Neuroscientific challenges to free will and responsibility. Roskies A Trends Cogn Sci; 2006 Sep; 10(9):419-23. PubMed ID: 16901745 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Mental disorder as the cause of a crime. Buchanan A; Zonana H Int J Law Psychiatry; 2009; 32(3):142-6. PubMed ID: 19303639 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]