Problematiche neuroscientifiche tra fallacie cognitive e prove di imputabilità e pericolosità sociale

Translated title of the contribution: [Autom. eng. transl.] Neuroscientific problems between cognitive fallacies and evidence of imputability and social danger

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

[Autom. eng. transl.] For the purposes of the scientific proof of mental illness, in the context of the judgment of imputability, the expert work can also be marked by fallacies, which invalidate its scientific reliability and of which the judge must also be aware. In this paper, a brief overview of these errors is offered, in which psychiatrists and forensic psychologists can more easily incur, also through some significant jurisprudential cases, which have been at the center of a critical comparison in the same scientific community of reference. These are cases in which the experts also made use of the contribution of neuroscience to make their conclusions on the defendant's ability to understand and want more convincing, which however would have been characterized by gaps that would make them scientifically unreliable even to eyes of the judges. But, although the cognitive fallacies can invalidate the same neuroscientific results, the latter could prove to be particularly useful, such as in the case of the pathological gambler or to formulate prognosis of social danger, even with the use of predictive algorithms.
Translated title of the contribution[Autom. eng. transl.] Neuroscientific problems between cognitive fallacies and evidence of imputability and social danger
Original languageItalian
Pages (from-to)40-48
Number of pages9
JournalDIRITTO PENALE E PROCESSO
Volume2020/1
Publication statusPublished - 2020

Keywords

  • biases
  • criminal liability
  • fallacie cognitive, neuroscienze, imputabilità, pericolosità
  • neurosciences

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of '[Autom. eng. transl.] Neuroscientific problems between cognitive fallacies and evidence of imputability and social danger'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this