Andere Kunden interessierten sich auch für
![The biological father's responsibility towards the social-affective paternity]( "The biological father's responsibility towards the social-affective paternity")
The biological father's responsibility towards the social-affective paternity26,99 €![LGBT Rights are Human Rights]( "LGBT Rights are Human Rights")
LGBT Rights are Human Rights15,99 €![Brain Apps]( "Brain Apps")
Brain Apps24,99 €![Juvenile Justice & Criminal Responsibility of the Juvenile]( "Juvenile Justice & Criminal Responsibility of the Juvenile")
Juvenile Justice & Criminal Responsibility of the Juvenile23,99 €![Public Expenditure from the perspective of the Fiscal Responsibility Law]( "Public Expenditure from the perspective of the Fiscal Responsibility Law")
Public Expenditure from the perspective of the Fiscal Responsibility Law26,99 €![Review the responsibility of Comparative Law Judge in Iran and France]( "Review the responsibility of Comparative Law Judge in Iran and France")
Review the responsibility of Comparative Law Judge in Iran and France23,99 €![The Criminal Responsibility of an Owner of A Vehicle Transports Coffee]( "The Criminal Responsibility of an Owner of A Vehicle Transports Coffee")
The Criminal Responsibility of an Owner of A Vehicle Transports Coffee26,99 €
As cognitive science continues to develop and inform our understanding of the brain, the opportunities for using neuroscientific evidence in criminal proceedings have also increased. The study discusses in an interdisciplinary manner the impact of neuroscience on the debates related to the concept of free will. It also analyzes how methods and tools of neuroscience can help in assessing the moral and legal responsibility of an individual. The study focuses on two major issues, which are addressed at length from a legal, philosophical and scientific standpoint. First, it evaluates from a theoretical perspective whether there is sufficient scientific research to support the idea that free will or free agency has been challenged by the advancements in neuroscience. Secondly, it empirically examines the views of judges, prosecutors and attorneys from three European countries (Austria, Romania and Slovenia) on the relevance of neuroscientific evidence in the assignment of criminal responsibility during court proceedings.