180 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19319837)
1. 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]
2. [Neuroscience in the Courtroom: From responsibility to dangerousness, ethical issues raised by the new French law].
Gkotsi GM; Moulin V; Gasser J
Encephale; 2015 Oct; 41(5):385-93. PubMed ID: 25439859
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Through a scanner darkly: functional neuroimaging as evidence of a criminal defendant's past mental states.
Brown T; Murphy E
Stanford Law Rev; 2010 Apr; 62(4):1119-208. PubMed ID: 20429137
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. Neuroscience in forensic psychiatry: From responsibility to dangerousness. Ethical and legal implications of using neuroscience for dangerousness assessments.
Gkotsi GM; Gasser J
Int J Law Psychiatry; 2016; 46():58-67. PubMed ID: 27209602
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Neuroscience, moral reasoning, and the law.
Knabb JJ; Welsh RK; Ziebell JG; Reimer KS
Behav Sci Law; 2009; 27(2):219-36. PubMed ID: 19241396
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. The insanity defense: effects of abolition unsupported by a moral consensus.
Cobun LS
Am J Law Med; 1984; 9(4):471-500. PubMed ID: 6486122
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. The psychology of defendant plea decision making.
Redlich AD; Bibas S; Edkins VA; Madon S
Am Psychol; 2017; 72(4):339-352. PubMed ID: 28481581
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Neuroimaging in criminal trials and the role of psychiatrists expert witnesses: A case study.
Gkotsi GM; Gasser J; Moulin V
Int J Law Psychiatry; 2019; 65():101359. PubMed ID: 29909218
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. Neuroscience, ethics and legal responsibility: the problem of the insanity defense. Commentary on "The ethics of neuroscience and the neuroscience of ethics: a phenomenological-existential approach".
Smith SR
Sci Eng Ethics; 2012 Sep; 18(3):475-81. PubMed ID: 23054669
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Informed decision making in persons acquitted not guilty by reason of insanity.
Elliott RL; Nelson E; Fitch WL; Scott R; Wolber G; Singh R
Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 1993; 21(3):309-20. PubMed ID: 8148513
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Are there lessons to be learned from a more scientific approach to mental condition defences?
Claydon L
Int J Law Psychiatry; 2012; 35(2):88-98. PubMed ID: 22296969
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Insanity defense pleas in Baltimore City: an analysis of outcome.
Janofsky JS; Dunn MH; Roskes EJ; Briskin JK; Rudolph MS
Am J Psychiatry; 1996 Nov; 153(11):1464-8. PubMed ID: 8890682
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. [Social neuroscience and psychiatry].
Takahashi H
Seishin Shinkeigaku Zasshi; 2013; 115(10):1027-41. PubMed ID: 24341069
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. Flickering admissibility: neuroimaging evidence in the U.S. courts.
Moriarty JC
Behav Sci Law; 2008; 26(1):29-49. PubMed ID: 18327830
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
