Nội dung được dịch bởi AI, chỉ mang tính chất tham khảo
Làm thế nào để tiến xa hơn trong cuộc tranh luận về trách nhiệm hình sự của những người phạm tội chống xã hội
Tóm tắt
Liệu những kẻ phạm tội có tâm thần xã hội hoặc những người thể hiện các hình thức hành vi chống xã hội cực đoan có nên bị coi là chịu trách nhiệm hình sự? Cuộc tranh luận hiện tại dường như đã đạt đến bế tắc. Một số học giả đã lập luận rằng dữ liệu thần kinh tâm lý về các cá nhân có tâm thần xã hội có thể liên quan đến việc xác định trách nhiệm hình sự của họ. Tuy nhiên, việc dựa vào dữ liệu như vậy chưa tạo ra được sự đồng thuận giữa các học giả pháp lý và triết học về việc liệu những cá nhân có tâm thần xã hội có nên được miễn trách nhiệm không. Chúng tôi đưa ra một chẩn đoán về lý do cuộc tranh luận này đã đạt đến bế tắc. Chúng tôi lập luận rằng một phần của vấn đề là tâm thần xã hội, với tư cách là một thể loại dựa trên hội chứng, quá không đồng nhất và do đó cung cấp triển vọng thấp cho việc tích hợp với dữ liệu thần kinh tâm lý có thể hỗ trợ các kết luận quan trọng về trách nhiệm hình sự của các cá nhân có tâm thần xã hội. Hơn nữa, khái niệm tâm thần xã hội ban đầu không được xây dựng để phân biệt giữa những cá nhân phạm tội có khả năng chịu trách nhiệm và những cá nhân chống xã hội không chịu trách nhiệm. Để vượt qua những khó khăn này và thúc đẩy cuộc tranh luận, chúng tôi mở rộng một khung lý thuyết hiện tại ít được thảo luận về việc kết nối sinh tâm lý học và pháp luật, tập trung vào các khái niệm, lĩnh vực và quy trình thần kinh tâm lý có thể đo lường trực tiếp năng lực của những kẻ phạm tội liên quan đến trách nhiệm hình sự, mà không nhất thiết phải dựa vào các khái niệm hội chứng làm trung gian. Đổi mới của đóng góp của chúng tôi là các cơ sở sinh tâm lý của việc miễn trách nhiệm có thể được phát triển thêm và sử dụng để xác định các phân loại tinh vi hơn của các loại nhân cách chống xã hội. Chúng tôi chỉ ra cách mà khung này cung cấp các hướng dẫn cho nghiên cứu liên ngành có thể thúc đẩy đáng kể hiểu biết của chúng ta về các điều kiện tiên quyết cho trách nhiệm hình sự và hỗ trợ thực tiễn pháp lý trong việc phân bổ hoặc từ chối nó.
Từ khóa
#trách nhiệm hình sự #tâm thần xã hội #hành vi chống xã hội #sinh tâm lý học #khung lý thuyếtTài liệu tham khảo
Kiehl, K.A., and W.P. Sinnott-Armstrong, eds. 2013. Handbook on psychopathy and law. Oxford University Press.
Malatesti, L., J. McMillan, and P. Šustar, eds. 2022. Psychopathy: Its uses, validity and status, vol. 27. Springer.
Malatesti, L., and J. McMillan, eds. 2010. Responsibility and psychopathy: Interfacing law, psychiatry, and philosophy. Oxford University Press.
Hare, R.D. 2003. The Hare psychopathy checklist revised (2nd ed.). Multi-Health Systems.
Glenn, A.L., A. Raine, and W.S. Laufer. 2011. Is it wrong to criminalize and punish psychopaths? Emotion Review 3 (3): 302–304.
Patrick, C.J., ed. 2018. Handbook of psychopathy, 2nd ed. The Guilford Press.
Jalava, J., and S. Griffiths. 2017. Philosophers on psychopaths: A cautionary tale in interdisciplinarity. Philosophy, Psychiatry, and Psychology 24 (1): 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1353/ppp.2017.0000.
Jefferson, A., and K. Sifferd. 2018. Are psychopaths legally insane? European Journal of Analytic Philosophy 14 (1): 79–96. https://doi.org/10.31820/ejap.14.1.5.
Jurjako, M., and L. Malatesti. 2018. Neuropsychology and the criminal responsibility of psychopaths: Reconsidering the evidence. Erkenntnis 83 (5): 1003–1025. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-017-9924-0.
American Psychiatric Association & American Psychiatric Association, eds. 2013. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-5 (5th ed). American Psychiatric Association.
Cuthbert, B.N. 2022. Research Domain Criteria (RDoC): Progress and potential. Current Directions in Psychological Science 31 (2): 107–114. https://doi.org/10.1177/09637214211051363.
Murphy, D. 2017. Can psychiatry refurnish the mind? Philosophical Explorations 20 (2): 160–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/13869795.2017.1312499.
Buckholtz, J.W., V.F. Reyna, and C. Slobogin. 2016. A neuro-legal lingua franca: Bridging law and neuroscience on the issue of self-control. Mental Health Law & Policy Journal. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2788178. Accessed 18 Aug 2022
Meynen, G. 2016. Legal insanity: Explorations in psychiatry, law, and ethics. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44721-6.
Simon, R.J., and H. Ahn-Redding. 2006. The insanity defense, the world over. Rowman & Littlefield.
Gröning, L., U.K. Haukvik, S.J. Morse, and S. Radovic. 2022. Remodelling criminal insanity: Exploring philosophical, legal, and medical premises of the medical model used in Norwegian law. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 81: 101776. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2022.101776.
Moore, M.S. 2015. The quest for a responsible responsibility test: Norwegian insanity law after Breivik. Criminal Law and Philosophy 9 (4): 645–693. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-014-9305-6.
Robinson, D.N. 1996. Wild beasts & idle humours: The insanity defense from antiquity to the present. Harvard University Press.
Glenn, A.L., W.S. Laufer, and A. Raine. 2013. Author Reply: Vitacco, Erickson, and Lishner: Holding psychopaths morally and criminally culpable. Emotion Review 5 (4): 426–427.
Moore, M.S. 2016. The neuroscience of volitional excuse. In Philosophical foundations of law and neuroscience, ed. D. Patterson and M.S. Pardo, 179–230. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198743095.003.0010.
Morse, S.J. 2008. Psychopathy and criminal responsibility. Neuroethics 1 (3): 205–212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-008-9021-9.
Jurjako, M., and L. Malatesti. 2022. The value-ladenness of psychopathy. In Psychopathy: Its uses, validity and status, vol. 27, ed. L. Malatesti, J. McMillan, and P. Šustar, 215–233. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82454-9_12.
Sadler, J.Z. 2008. Vice and the diagnostic classification of mental disorders: A philosophical case conference. Philosophy, Psychiatry, & Psychology 15 (1): 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1353/ppp.0.0152.
De Brito, S.A., A.E. Forth, A.R. Baskin-Sommers, I.A. Brazil, E.R. Kimonis, D. Pardini, P.J. Frick, R.J.R. Blair, and E. Viding. 2021. Psychopathy. Nature Reviews Disease Primers 7 (1): 49. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41572-021-00282-1.
DeLisi, M. 2016. Psychopathy as unified theory of crime. Palgrave Macmillan.
Brazil, I.A., J.D.M. van Dongen, J.H.R. Maes, R.B. Mars, and A.R. Baskin-Sommers. 2018. Classification and treatment of antisocial individuals: From behavior to biocognition. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 91: 259–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.10.010.
Malatesti, L., and E. Baccarini. 2022. The disorder status of psychopathy. In Psychopathy. Its uses, validity, and status, ed. L. Malatesti, J. McMillan, and P. Šustar, 291–309. Springer.
Nadelhoffer, T., and W.P. Sinnott-Armstrong. 2013. Is psychopathy a mental disease? In Neuroscience and legal responsibility, ed. Nicole A. Vincent, 229–255. Oxford University Press.
Ene, I., K.K.-Y. Wong, and G.D. Salali. 2022. Is it good to be bad? An evolutionary analysis of the adaptive potential of psychopathic traits. Evolutionary Human Sciences 4: e37. https://doi.org/10.1017/ehs.2022.36.
Jurjako, M. 2019. Is psychopathy a harmful dysfunction? Biology & Philosophy, 34(5). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-018-9668-5.
Međedović, J., B. Petrović, J. Želeskov-Đorić, and M. Savić. 2017. Interpersonal and affective psychopathy traits can enhance human fitness. Evolutionary Psychological Science 3 (4): 306–315. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40806-017-0097-5.
Yannoulidis, S. 2012. Mental state defences in criminal law. Ashgate.
Sifferd, K.L. 2022. Legal insanity and moral knowledge: Why is a lack of moral knowledge related to a mental illness exculpatory? In Agency in mental disorder, ed. M. King and J. May, 113–135. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198868811.003.0006.
Blair, R.J.R. 1995. A cognitive developmental approach to morality: Investigating the psychopath. Cognition 57 (1): 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(95)00676-P.
Aharoni, E., W. Sinnott-Armstrong, and K.A. Kiehl. 2012. Can psychopathic offenders discern moral wrongs? A new look at the moral/conventional distinction. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 121 (2): 484–497. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024796.
Aharoni, E., W. Sinnott-Armstrong, and K.A. Kiehl. 2014. What’s wrong? Moral understanding in psychopathic offenders. Journal of Research in Personality 53: 175–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2014.10.002.
Marshall, J., A.L. Watts, and S.O. Lilienfeld. 2018. Do psychopathic individuals possess a misaligned moral compass? A meta-analytic examination of psychopathy’s relations with moral judgment. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment 9 (1): 40–50. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000226.
Rosenberg Larsen, R., and D. Sackris. 2023. Are there “moral” judgments? European Journal of Analytic Philosophy 19 (2): (S1)1-23. https://doi.org/10.31820/ejap.19.2.1.
Sackris, D. 2022. The disunity of moral judgment: Implications for the study of psychopathy. Philosophical Psychology, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2022.2155125.
de Sio, F.S. 2011. Irresistible desires as an excuse. King’s Law Journal 22 (3): 289–307. https://doi.org/10.5235/096157611798456753.
Jurjako, M., and L. Malatesti. 2016. Instrumental rationality in psychopathy: Implications from learning tasks. Philosophical Psychology 29 (5): 717–731. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2016.1144876.
Meloy, J.R., A. Book, A. Hosker-Field, T. Methot-Jones, and J. Roters. 2018. Social, sexual, and violent predation: Are psychopathic traits evolutionarily adaptive? Violence and Gender 5 (3): 153–165. https://doi.org/10.1089/vio.2018.0012.
Glimmerveen, J.C., J.H.R. Maes, and I.A. Brazil. 2022. Psychopathy, maladaptive learning and risk-taking. In Psychopathy. Its uses, validity, and status, eds. L. Malatesti, J. McMillan, and P. Šustar, 189–211. Springer.
Glimmerveen, J.C., J.H.R. Maes, E. Bulten, I. Scheper, and I.A. Brazil. 2022. So what’cha want? The impact of individualised rewards on associative learning in psychopathic offenders. Cortex 149: 44–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2022.01.006.
Jalava, J., and S. Griffiths. 2022. Psychopathy: Neurohype and its consequences. In Psychopathy. Its uses, validity, and status, ed. L. Malatesti, J. McMillan, and P. Šustar, 79–98. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82454-9_6.
Blair, R.J.R., D.G.V. Mitchell, K.S. Peschardt, E. Colledge, R.A. Leonard, J.H. Shine, L.K. Murray, and D.I. Perrett. 2004. Reduced sensitivity to others’ fearful expressions in psychopathic individuals. Personality and Individual Differences 37 (6): 1111–1122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2003.10.008.
Hastings, M.E., J.P. Tangney, and J. Stuewig. 2008. Psychopathy and identification of facial expressions of emotion. Personality and Individual Differences 44 (7): 1474–1483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.01.004.
Poeppl, T.B., M.R. Donges, A. Mokros, R. Rupprecht, P.T. Fox, A.R. Laird, D. Bzdok, B. Langguth, and S.B. Eickhoff. 2019. A view behind the mask of sanity: Meta-analysis of aberrant brain activity in psychopaths. Molecular Psychiatry 24 (3): 463–470. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41380-018-0122-5.
Deming, P., M. Heilicher, and M. Koenigs. 2022. How reliable are amygdala findings in psychopathy? A systematic review of MRI studies. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 142: 104875. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2022.104875.
Blair, R.J.R., D. Mitchell, and K. Blair. 2005. The psychopath: Emotion and the brain. Blackwell.
Greenspan, P. 2016. Responsible psychopaths revisited. The Journal of Ethics 20 (1–3): 265–278. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10892-016-9231-z.
Glass, S.J., and J.P. Newman. 2006. Recognition of facial affect in psychopathic offenders. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 115 (4): 815–820. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.115.4.815.
Dargis, M., R.C. Wolf, and M. Koenigs. 2018. Psychopathic traits are associated with reduced fixations to the eye region of fearful faces. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 127 (1): 43–50. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000322.
Larson, C.L., A.R. Baskin-Sommers, D.M. Stout, N.L. Balderston, J.J. Curtin, D.H. Schultz, K.A. Kiehl, and J.P. Newman. 2013. The interplay of attention and emotion: Top-down attention modulates amygdala activation in psychopathy. Cognitive, Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience 13 (4): 757–770. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-013-0172-8.
Shane, M.S., and L.L. Groat. 2018. Capacity for upregulation of emotional processing in psychopathy: All you have to do is ask. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience 13 (11): 1163–1176. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsy088.
Groat, L.L., and M.S. Shane. 2020. A motivational framework for psychopathy: Toward a reconceptualization of the disorder. European Psychologist 25 (2): 92–103. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000394.
Maibom, H.L. 2008. The mad, the bad, and the psychopath. Neuroethics 1 (3): 167–184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-008-9013-9.
Aono, D., G. Yaffe, and H. Kober. 2019. Neuroscientific evidence in the courtroom: A review. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications 4 (1): 40. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-019-0179-y.
Brzović, Z., M. Jurjako, and P. Šustar. 2017. The kindness of psychopaths. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 31 (2): 189–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/02698595.2018.1424761.
Griem, J., N.J. Kolla, and J. Tully. 2022. Key challenges in neurocognitive assessment of individuals with antisocial personality disorder and psychopathy. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience 16: 1007121. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2022.1007121.
Jurjako, M., L. Malatesti, and I.A. Brazil. 2020. Biocognitive classification of antisocial individuals without explanatory reductionism. Perspectives on Psychological Science 15 (4): 957–972. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620904160.
Maibom, H.L. 2018. What can philosophers learn from psychopathy? European Journal of Analytic Philosophy 14 (1): 63–78.
Cooke, D.J. 2018. Psychopathic personality disorder: Capturing an elusive concept. European Journal of Analytic Philosophy 14 (1): 15–32. https://doi.org/10.31820/ejap.14.1.1.
Rosenberg Larsen, R. 2018. False-positives in psychopathy assessment: Proposing theory-driven exclusion criteria in research sampling. European Journal of Analytic Philosophy 14 (1): 33–52.
Patrick, C.J., D.C. Fowles, and R.F. Krueger. 2009. Triarchic conceptualization of psychopathy: Developmental origins of disinhibition, boldness, and meanness. Development and Psychopathology 21 (3): 913–938.
Baskin-Sommers, A.R., I.A. Brazil, J. Ryan, N.J. Kohlenberg, C.S. Neumann, and J.P. Newman. 2015. Mapping the association of global executive functioning onto diverse measures of psychopathic traits. Personality Disorders 6 (4): 336–346. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000125.
Lilienfeld, S.O., S.F. Smith, and A.L. Watts. 2013. Issues in diagnosis: Conceptual issues and controversies. In Psychopathology: History, diagnosis, and empirical foundations, ed. W.E. Craighead, D.J. Mikllowitz, and L.W. Craighead, 1–35. Wiley.
Bolton, D., and G. Gillett. 2019. The biopsychosocial model of health and disease: New philosophical and scientific developments. Palgrave Macmillan.
Pickersgill, M. 2012. Standardising antisocial personality disorder: The social shaping of a psychiatric technology. Sociology of Health & Illness 34 (4): 544–559. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9566.2011.01404.x.
Campbell, C., and N. Eastman. 2014. The limits of legal use of neuroscience. In Bioprediction, biomarkers, and bad behavior, ed. I. Singh, W.P. Sinnott-Armstrong, and J. Savulescu, 91–117. Oxford University Press.
Glannon, W. 2014. The limitations and potential of neuroimaging in the criminal law. The Journal of Ethics 18 (2): 153–170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10892-014-9169-y.
Hirstein, W., K. Sifferd, and T. Fagan. 2018. Responsible brains: Neuroscience, law, and human culpability. The MIT Press.
Werner, K.M., M. Inzlicht, and B.Q. Ford. 2022. Whither inhibition? Current Directions in Psychological Science 31 (4): 333–339. https://doi.org/10.1177/09637214221095848.
Pardo, M. S., & Patterson, D. M. 2013. Minds, brains, and law: The conceptual foundations of law and neuroscience. Oxford University Press.
Buckholtz, J.W., and D.L. Faigman. 2014. Promises, promises for neuroscience and law. Current Biology: CB 24 (18): R861-867. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2014.07.057.
Pernu, T.K., and N. Elzein. 2020. From neuroscience to law: Bridging the gap. Frontiers in Psychology 11: 1862. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01862.
Schopp, R.F. 2008. Automatism, insanity, and the psychology of criminal responsibility: A philosophical inquiry. Cambridge Univ. Press.
Dillon, D.G., and D.A. Pizzagalli. 2007. Inhibition of action, thought, and emotion: A selective neurobiological review. Applied and Preventive Psychology 12 (3): 99–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appsy.2007.09.004.
Baskin-Sommers, A.R., S. Ruiz, B. Sarcos, and C. Simmons. 2022. Cognitive–affective factors underlying disinhibitory disorders and legal implications. Nature Reviews Psychology 1 (3): 145–160. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-022-00020-8.
Baskin-Sommers, Ae. R. 2016. Dissecting antisocial behavior: The impact of neural, genetic, and environmental factors. Clinical Psychological Science 4 (3): 500–510. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167702615626904.
Aspinwall, L.G., T.R. Brown, and J. Tabery. 2012. The double-edged sword: Does biomechanism Increase or decrease judges’ sentencing of psychopaths? Science 337 (6096): 846–849. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1219569.
Morse, S.J. 2022. Is executive function the universal acid? Criminal Law and Philosophy 16 (2): 299–318. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-021-09607-3.
Burghart, M., Schmidt, S., & Mier, D. (2023). Executive functions in psychopathy: A meta-analysis of inhibition, planning, shifting, and working memory performance [Preprint]. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/naxvg
Hirstein, W. 2022. Neuroscience and normativity: How knowledge of the brain offers a deeper understanding of moral and legal responsibility. Criminal Law and Philosophy 16 (2): 327–351. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-021-09600-w.
Glimmerveen, J.C., I.A. Brazil, B.H.(Erik) Bulten, and J.H.R. Maes. 2018. Uncovering naturalistic rewards and their subjective value in forensic psychiatric patients. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 17(2), 154–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2018.1452081.
Ichikawa, N., G.J. Siegle, A. Dombrovski, and H. Ohira. 2010. Subjective and model-estimated reward prediction: Association with the feedback-related negativity (FRN) and reward prediction error in a reinforcement learning task. International Journal of Psychophysiology: Official Journal of the International Organization of Psychophysiology 78 (3): 273–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2010.09.001.
Loehr, J.D., D. Kourtis, and I.A. Brazil. 2015. It’s not just my fault: Neural correlates of feedback processing in solo and joint action. Biological Psychology 111: 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2015.08.004.
Baskin-Sommers, A.R., and I.A. Brazil. 2022. The importance of an exaggerated attention bottleneck for understanding psychopathy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 26 (4): 325–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2022.01.001.
Bošnjak, M., M. Jurjako, and L. Malatesti. 2022. The criminal responsibility of high-functioning autistic offenders in Croatia. Balkan Journal of Philosophy 14 (2): 137–148. https://doi.org/10.5840/bjp202214217.