The controversial relationship between neuroscience and moral responsibility in psychopaths
Abstract Background From fields such as neuroethics and legal medicine it is increasingly common to raise the issue on whether it is necessary to rethink questions such as moral and criminal responsibility in individuals fulfilling Hare’s criteria for psychopathy. The Hare’s Psychopathy Checklist Re...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
SpringerOpen
2018-06-01
|
| Series: | Egyptian Journal of Forensic Sciences |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s41935-018-0071-9 |
| _version_ | 1828900135698956288 |
|---|---|
| author | José Eduardo Muñoz-Negro José Pablo Martínez Barbero Felicity Smith Brooke Leonard Jaime Padilla Martínez Inmaculada Ibáñez-Casas |
| author_facet | José Eduardo Muñoz-Negro José Pablo Martínez Barbero Felicity Smith Brooke Leonard Jaime Padilla Martínez Inmaculada Ibáñez-Casas |
| author_sort | José Eduardo Muñoz-Negro |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Background From fields such as neuroethics and legal medicine it is increasingly common to raise the issue on whether it is necessary to rethink questions such as moral and criminal responsibility in individuals fulfilling Hare’s criteria for psychopathy. The Hare’s Psychopathy Checklist Revised is currently the diagnostic gold standard for psychopathy and defines a type of personality characterized by interpersonal, affective, and behavioral symptoms. Moral and criminal responsibility in these individuals is now being reconsidered due to new data provided by neuroscience. However, the translation from these neuroscientific findings into terms of moral responsibility is neither direct nor evident. The aim of this review is to assemble the available neuroscientific evidence and to clarify the moral consequences of these findings. Main text A genetic base for psychopathy exists as well as brain functionality or even structural variations. However, these structural changes are not robust and consistent across the different studies. Moreover, this body of evidence uses different methodologies and, for this reason, it is hardly comparable. Findings from the field of neuropsychology such as the emotional alterations, empathy impairment or emotional theory of mind (ToM) deviance are equivocal, controversial, and a focus of debate. These can be well understood as correlates of the particular psychopaths’ moral functioning more than as a deterministic causality for their conduct. In addition, a biological and neuropsychological model of moral responsibility open to scientific analysis does not exist. Ultimately, moral responsibility has a biological and neuropsychological basis, but it cannot be fully explained by these constructs. Conclusion This review assesses new findings in the study of moral and criminal responsibility in psychopaths, and the different interpretations about them. It concludes that, in the absence of an experimental model of moral responsibility, current data, though controversial, are not definitive arguments that can reduce or to eliminate moral, and subsequently, criminal responsibility. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-13T15:43:44Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-1b28cc9559cb431e808c9de7afc6389b |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2090-5939 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-13T15:43:44Z |
| publishDate | 2018-06-01 |
| publisher | SpringerOpen |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Egyptian Journal of Forensic Sciences |
| spelling | doaj.art-1b28cc9559cb431e808c9de7afc6389b2022-12-21T23:39:46ZengSpringerOpenEgyptian Journal of Forensic Sciences2090-59392018-06-01811810.1186/s41935-018-0071-9The controversial relationship between neuroscience and moral responsibility in psychopathsJosé Eduardo Muñoz-Negro0José Pablo Martínez Barbero1Felicity Smith2Brooke Leonard3Jaime Padilla Martínez4Inmaculada Ibáñez-Casas5Mental Health Clinical Management Unit Granada South, Andalusian Health ServiceAndalusian Health ServiceUniversity of EdinburghUniversity of GranadaPsychiatric Unit of Baza Hospital, Andalusian Health ServiceDepartament of Personality, Assesssment and Psychological Treatment, University of GranadaAbstract Background From fields such as neuroethics and legal medicine it is increasingly common to raise the issue on whether it is necessary to rethink questions such as moral and criminal responsibility in individuals fulfilling Hare’s criteria for psychopathy. The Hare’s Psychopathy Checklist Revised is currently the diagnostic gold standard for psychopathy and defines a type of personality characterized by interpersonal, affective, and behavioral symptoms. Moral and criminal responsibility in these individuals is now being reconsidered due to new data provided by neuroscience. However, the translation from these neuroscientific findings into terms of moral responsibility is neither direct nor evident. The aim of this review is to assemble the available neuroscientific evidence and to clarify the moral consequences of these findings. Main text A genetic base for psychopathy exists as well as brain functionality or even structural variations. However, these structural changes are not robust and consistent across the different studies. Moreover, this body of evidence uses different methodologies and, for this reason, it is hardly comparable. Findings from the field of neuropsychology such as the emotional alterations, empathy impairment or emotional theory of mind (ToM) deviance are equivocal, controversial, and a focus of debate. These can be well understood as correlates of the particular psychopaths’ moral functioning more than as a deterministic causality for their conduct. In addition, a biological and neuropsychological model of moral responsibility open to scientific analysis does not exist. Ultimately, moral responsibility has a biological and neuropsychological basis, but it cannot be fully explained by these constructs. Conclusion This review assesses new findings in the study of moral and criminal responsibility in psychopaths, and the different interpretations about them. It concludes that, in the absence of an experimental model of moral responsibility, current data, though controversial, are not definitive arguments that can reduce or to eliminate moral, and subsequently, criminal responsibility.http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s41935-018-0071-9PsychopathyHare psychopathy checklist revisedMoral responsibilityNeuroscienceNeuroethics |
| spellingShingle | José Eduardo Muñoz-Negro José Pablo Martínez Barbero Felicity Smith Brooke Leonard Jaime Padilla Martínez Inmaculada Ibáñez-Casas The controversial relationship between neuroscience and moral responsibility in psychopaths Egyptian Journal of Forensic Sciences Psychopathy Hare psychopathy checklist revised Moral responsibility Neuroscience Neuroethics |
| title | The controversial relationship between neuroscience and moral responsibility in psychopaths |
| title_full | The controversial relationship between neuroscience and moral responsibility in psychopaths |
| title_fullStr | The controversial relationship between neuroscience and moral responsibility in psychopaths |
| title_full_unstemmed | The controversial relationship between neuroscience and moral responsibility in psychopaths |
| title_short | The controversial relationship between neuroscience and moral responsibility in psychopaths |
| title_sort | controversial relationship between neuroscience and moral responsibility in psychopaths |
| topic | Psychopathy Hare psychopathy checklist revised Moral responsibility Neuroscience Neuroethics |
| url | http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s41935-018-0071-9 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT joseeduardomunoznegro thecontroversialrelationshipbetweenneuroscienceandmoralresponsibilityinpsychopaths AT josepablomartinezbarbero thecontroversialrelationshipbetweenneuroscienceandmoralresponsibilityinpsychopaths AT felicitysmith thecontroversialrelationshipbetweenneuroscienceandmoralresponsibilityinpsychopaths AT brookeleonard thecontroversialrelationshipbetweenneuroscienceandmoralresponsibilityinpsychopaths AT jaimepadillamartinez thecontroversialrelationshipbetweenneuroscienceandmoralresponsibilityinpsychopaths AT inmaculadaibanezcasas thecontroversialrelationshipbetweenneuroscienceandmoralresponsibilityinpsychopaths AT joseeduardomunoznegro controversialrelationshipbetweenneuroscienceandmoralresponsibilityinpsychopaths AT josepablomartinezbarbero controversialrelationshipbetweenneuroscienceandmoralresponsibilityinpsychopaths AT felicitysmith controversialrelationshipbetweenneuroscienceandmoralresponsibilityinpsychopaths AT brookeleonard controversialrelationshipbetweenneuroscienceandmoralresponsibilityinpsychopaths AT jaimepadillamartinez controversialrelationshipbetweenneuroscienceandmoralresponsibilityinpsychopaths AT inmaculadaibanezcasas controversialrelationshipbetweenneuroscienceandmoralresponsibilityinpsychopaths |