Neurolaw is a branch of law that is emerging in our eyes, which must give the answer to the question about the acceptable level of ingrerene in the human brain.

Physicians and scientists agree that having the right research equipment and knowledge about the functioning of the brain they can determine the ability of a person to bear full responsibility for their actions.

Today, neuroscience affects criminal law and forensic science, contributes to the redefinition of such concepts as, for example, sanity, insanity, awareness or incapacitation.

Currently, in most legal systems, psychopaths are considered to be well-versed and aware of their deeds. Because they often do not show remorse they receive high penalties. According to the current state of neurological knowledge, psychopathy is a disease, and a person affected by it has no ability to empathize and experience deep feelings. Should this be a mitigating circumstance during the trial and when the court issues its judgment? Or should you rather examine potential psychopaths and isolate them from society before they commit a crime?

How can you reconcile the medical knowledge, which allows for the possibility of interference in the human brain with the legal regulations that have to uphold human rights?

I see many opportunities and threats here and I am very interested in your opinions.

Happy New 2019!

More Przemysław Osóbka's questions See All
Similar questions and discussions