Les Neurosciences au Tribunal: de la responsabilité à la dangerosité

In recent years, an explosion of interest in neuroscience has led to the development of "Neuro-law," a new multidisciplinary field of knowledge whose aim is to examine the impact and role of neuroscientific findings in legal proceedings. Neuroscientific evidence is increasingly being used in US and European courts in criminal trials, as part of psychiatric testimony, nourishing the debate about the legal implications of brain research in psychiatric-legal settings. During these proceedings, the role of forensic psychiatrists is crucial. In most criminal justice systems, their mission consists in accomplishing two basic tasks: assessing the degree of responsibility of the offender and evaluating their future dangerousness. In the first part of our research, we aim to examine the impact of Neuroscientific evidence in the assessment of criminal responsibility, a key concept of law. An initial jurisprudential research leads to conclude that there are significant difficulties and limitations in using neuroscience for the assessment of criminal responsibility. In the current socio-legal context, responsibility assessments are progressively being weakened, whereas dangerousness assessments gain increasing importance in the field of forensic psychiatry. In the second part of our research we concentrate on the impact of using neuroscience for the assessment of dangerousness. We argue that in the current policy era of zero tolerance, judges, confronted with the pressure to ensure public security, may tend to interpret neuroscientific knowledge and data as an objective and reliable way of evaluating one's dangerousness and risk of reoffending, rather than their responsibility. This tendency could be encouraged by a utilitarian approach to punishment, advanced by some recent neuroscientific research which puts into question the existence of free will and responsibility and argues for a rejection of the retributive theory of punishment. Although this shift away from punishment aimed at retribution in favor of a consequentialist approach to criminal law is advanced by some authors as a more progressive and humane approach, we believe that it could lead to the instrumentalisation of neuroscience in the interest of public safety, which can run against the proper exercise of justice and civil liberties of the offenders. By advancing a criminal law regime animated by the consequentialist aim of avoiding social harms through rehabilitation, neuroscience promotes a return to a therapeutical approach to crime which can have serious impact on the kind and the length of sentences imposed on the offenders; if neuroscientific data are interpreted as evidence of dangerousness, rather than responsibility, it is highly likely that judges impose heavier sentences, or/and security measures (in civil law systems), which can be indeterminate in length. Errors and epistemic traps of past criminological movements trying to explain the manifestation of a violent and deviant behavior on a biological and deterministic basis stress the need for caution concerning the use of modern neuroscientific methods in criminal proceedings.

Obedience-disobedience dynamic and the role of responsibility

Obedience has been thoroughly studied in social psychology, both in its positive and negative aspects. Nevertheless, in these empirical studies disobedience has been considered to be the opposite of obedience and indeed its negation. Instead, some recent studies suggest that if obedience to authority is important in ensuring the continuity of social and group life, disobedience is crucial, under some circumstances, in stopping the authority relationship from degenerating into an authoritarian relationship. In this perspective, disobedience may be conceived of as a protest undermining the legitimacy of authority, or else it can represent an instrument of the community for controlling the legitimacy of the authority's demands, becoming a factor safeguarding against authoritarianism. The aim of the present study was to empirically verify the dynamics existing between disobedience and obedience. The results show that people who attach importance to both obedience and disobedience in the relationship between the individual and society recognize the importance of democratic values and consider themselves responsible for the defence of human rights. Instead, people who only recognize the value of obedience and consider disobedience as a threat to the status quo are more authoritarian, individualistic people.

From the vendor in the hemp shop to the dealer in the alleyway? A comparison of the sources of supply of cannabis in a time of 'de-normalising' cannabis use.

Objectives: After several years of increasing 'normalisation' of cannabis use in Switzerland at the beginning of the new millennium, a reversed tendency, marked among others by a more stringent law-enforcement, set in. The presentation examines the question of where adolescents and young adults obtained cannabis, within the context of this societal change. In addition, it compares the sources of supply for cannabis with those found in studies of other European countries. Methods: Analyses are based on data from the Swiss Cannabis Monitoring Study. As part of this longitudinal, representative population survey, more than 5000 adolescents and young adults were interviewed by telephone on the topic of cannabis. Within the total sample, 593 (2004) or 554 (2007) respectively, current cannabis users replied to the questions on sources of supply. Changes in law-enforcement and societal climate concerning cannabis are assessed based on relevant literature, media reports and parliamentary discussions. Results: Whereas 22% of cannabis users stated in 2004 that they bought their cannabis from vendors in hemp shops, this proportion drastically decreased to 6% three years later. At the same time, cannabis was obtained increasingly from friends, while the proportion of users who purchased cannabis from dealers in the alleyway, more than doubled from 6% (2004) to 13% (2007). It was male cannabis users, and in particular, young adult and frequent users, who have moved into the alleyways. Generally, users who buy cannabis in the alleyway show more cannabis-related problems than those who mainly name other sources of supply, even when adjusted for sex, age and frequency of cannabis use. Discussion: Possible consequences of these changes in cannabis supply, like the risk of merging a previously cannabis-only market with other 'harder' drugs markets, are discussed.

The Mixed Management of Patients' Medical Records: Responsibility Sharing Between the Patient and the Physician

Through this article, we propose a mixed management of patients' medical records, so as to share responsibilities between the patient and the Medical Practitioner by making Patients responsible for the validation of their administrative information, and MPs responsible for the validation of their Patients' medical information. Our proposal can be considered a solution to the main problem faced by patients, health practitioners and the authorities, namely the gathering and updating of administrative and medical data belonging to the patient in order to accurately reconstitute a patient's medical history. This method is based on two processes. The aim of the first process is to provide a patient's administrative data, in order to know where and when the patient received care (name of the health structure or health practitioner, type of care: out patient or inpatient). The aim of the second process is to provide a patient's medical information and to validate it under the accountability of the Medical Practitioner with the help of the patient if needed. During these two processes, the patient's privacy will be ensured through cryptographic hash functions like the Secure Hash Algorithm, which allows pseudonymisation of a patient's identity. The proposed Medical Record Search Engines will be able to retrieve and to provide upon a request formulated by the Medical ractitioner all the available information concerning a patient who has received care in different health structures without divulging the patient's identity. Our method can lead to improved efficiency of personal medical record management under the mixed responsibilities of the patient and the MP.