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.

Courts and Courtly Cultures in Early Modern Italy and Europe: Models and Languages

This volume deals with the forms of propaganda and self-representation, through words and images, during the rise of the 'civiltà delle corti' and through processes typical of the time, such as confrontation, adaptation, competition and rivalry. This period, which marked the passage of Italian and European culture from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance, is fundamental in the development of Modern Europe, and it lasted up to the XVIII century and beyond. At the heart of many matters debated here lies the relationship between culture and politics. The formation of a 'Lombard identity', central to the Sinergia project which was the frame of the whole research and its conferences, is closely linked to this broad general context. It places the so called 'questione milanese' - above the traditional hierarchies 'Toscana oriented' - at the centre of many questions regarding Northern Italy as a whole, starting from the dissolution of the Medieval communes, through to the rise of the signorie, from the end of the XIII century and the beginning of the XIV century up to the early XVI century.

To analyse a trace or not? Evaluating the decision-making process in the criminal investigation

In order to broaden our knowledge and understanding of the decision steps in the criminal investigation process, we started by evaluating the decision to analyse a trace and the factors involved in this decision step. This decision step is embedded in the complete criminal investigation process, involving multiple decision and triaging steps. Considering robbery cases occurring in a geographic region during a 2-year-period, we have studied the factors influencing the decision to submit biological traces, directly sampled on the scene of the robbery or on collected objects, for analysis. The factors were categorised into five knowledge dimensions: strategic, immediate, physical, criminal and utility and decision tree analysis was carried out. Factors in each category played a role in the decision to analyse a biological trace. Interestingly, factors involving information available prior to the analysis are of importance, such as the fact that a positive result (a profile suitable for comparison) is already available in the case, or that a suspect has been identified through traditional police work before analysis. One factor that was taken into account, but was not significant, is the matrix of the trace. Hence, the decision to analyse a trace is not influenced by this variable. The decision to analyse a trace first is very complex and many of the tested variables were taken into account. The decisions are often made on a case-by-case basis.

Dial M for Murder: A Case of Passion Killing, Criminal Evidence and Sultanic Power in Medieval India

This paper considers the structures and applications of the criminal judicial system in the Islamic Later Middle Period as it developed in India under the sultans of Delhi (1200-1400 CE). A fundamental issue in crime and punishment is the relationship between sultanic power and religious authority. Particularly at stake in this relationship is the question of who can sanction the highest form of punishment, i.e. the death penalty (siyāsa). Contemporary historians and scholars in the study of religion investigating the relationship between sharīʿa and siyāsa to reveal the extent and limits of sultanic power show a system of governance that allowed for the delegation of authority, particularly in the area of the judiciary, from the sultan down to viziers and judges. Some scholars depict the relationship between the ʿulamāʾ and the sultan as a kind of stand off. The actual dynamics of legal jurisdiction were much more complex. This study proposes a new interpretive framework for understanding the relationship between political power and religious authority through a critical analysis of the criminal judicial system, law, and historical narrative. In particular, I consider a murder case described by Shams al-dīn Sirāj ʿAfīf in one of the most significant histories written in the later Delhi Sultanate, the Tārīkh-i Fīrūzshāhī.