Neuro-jurisprudence

The Neuro jurisprudence is an interdisciplinary branch of law that deals with the findings of neuroscience and their consequences for the legal system concerned.

object

According to the controversial legal-philosophical doctrine of determinism , humans are incapable of free will formation and decision-making .

The German brain researchers Gerhard Roth , Wolf Singer , Wolfgang Prinz and Hans J. Markowitsch consider this to be empirically proven in their publication from 2004 in the sense of a "neural determinism", since human actions are determined by organic brain action patterns and a nonetheless perceived free will is an illusion.

Neuro-jurisprudence questions the jurisprudential statements about guilt and punishment in particular .

Robert Weimar pursued a special research approach with the attempt to make neuroscientific findings usable for the administrative sciences ( neuro-administratics ).

criticism

The scientific doctrine of neural determinism meets with criticism in both law and the humanities .

From epistemological point of view the doctrine meant a methodical restriction on scientific ways of knowing. There is a risk of "reductionist global declarations" ( Peter Strohschneider ).

Determinism is a mere "fad" that facilitates access to research funds. As an auxiliary science, however, it is useful, but the empirical findings of the natural sciences cannot answer the normative questions of law ( Lutz Wingert ).

Wherever the humanities also work empirically (e.g. in education ), determinism is a useful addition. The findings of the young neurosciences have yet to be verified. The natural sciences should also include methods from the humanities. Determinism would then be suitable for promoting interdisciplinary research ( Jürgen Mittelstraß ).

It divides jurisprudence into three camps. Some call for a neuro-jurisprudential approach that engages in the illusory character of free will and demands a restructuring of (criminal) law. Others declare the law and jurisprudence in their understanding of freedom to be autonomous and therefore claim that neural determinism does not concern the law. Third parties defend the assumption of freedom because the empirical counter-evidence is neither there nor even feasible and accuse the brain researchers of a category error by jumping from researcher to interpreter. However, one should engage in an interdisciplinary discourse in order to raise awareness of the elementary importance of the assumption of freedom for the law ( Thomas Hillenkamp ). Anyone who declares freedom of will to be empirically proven refuted, is tearing down the foundations of every free legal system, not only of (criminal) law, but also of civil and constitutional law.

Determinism does not play a role in the judgment of the criminal courts .

literature

Christian Geyer (ed.): Brain research and free will. To interpret the latest experiments. Suhrkamp Verlag Frankfurt, 2004 ISBN 978-3-518-12387-4
Roland Wittmann: The state claim to punishment and the more recent results of brain research , Festschrift for AJ Szwarc, Berlin 2009, p. 147 ff.
Johannes Kruse: Neurojurisprudence - Potentials and Perspectives , NJW 2020, p. 137 ff.