A recap on Italian neurolaw: epistemological and ethical issues (original) (raw)

Abstract

Italy is in the forefront of forensic neuroscience practice among European nations. In recent years, the country presented two major criminal cases, the Trieste Case in 2009 and the Como Case in 2011, which were the first cases employing neurogenetic and functional neuroimaging methods in European courts. In these paper we will discuss the consequences that an understanding of the neural and genetic determinants of human (mis)behavior will have on law, especially on the Italian legal context. Some claim that such consequences will actually be revolutionary, while others argue that legal doctrine assumptions won’t be undermined by neuroscientific findings. In the first section of the paper, we introduce the general debate and follow with a section devoted to the two Italian cases. In the third and final section, we discuss epistemological and ethical issues regarding Italian neurolaw. We defend a position which diverges from those prevailing in the debate. While negative outcomes and concerns were usually evidenced, we focus on positive changes coming with the new paradigm of interaction between neuroscience and the law. Our view is that these cases are clearly pioneering ones, anticipating what will happen in the courtrooms of the European Union in the whole, in the near future.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. A precursor case on the use of neuroimaging in Italian penal courtrooms may be that of Gianfranco Stevanin in the 90s in which the insanity defense made use of EEG, TAC and NMRI to establish a link between traumatic brain injury in frontal lobes and mental disorder (Fornari and Galliani 2003).
  2. Some headlines on major newspapers for the Trieste case, which interpreted the verdict as expressing a strong causal link between genes and crime, have been: A controversial penalty reduction (La Stampa, 2009, October 25); Penalty reduction for an Algerian murderer: genetically vulnerable, the “estrangement” of integration (Il Giornale, 2009, October 25); Reduced penalty for a murderer thanks to a gene: “He’s got a predisposition to aggressiveness” (La Repubblica, 2009, October, 26); Genetically vulnerable? A racist sentence (Messaggero Veneto, 2009, October 28); Are “bad” genes culpable of a crime? (Corriere della Sera, 2009, November 8) (our translation). Some others for the Como case: Being a murderer is a matter of DNA (Libero, 2011, May 14); A turn towards a forensic psychiatry (Avvenire, 2011, May 21); Insane brain, no life sentence (Avvenire, 2011, May 21); She killed her sister because of her brain structure (Corriere di Como, 2011, August 30); Cirmido, she killed her sister. “Altered genes” (La Provincia, 2011, August 30) (our translation).
  3. See also Denno (2013), who contests the idea of evidence derived from behavioral genetics in criminal trials as being a _double_-edged sword (Aspinwall et al. 2012) employable both as a mitigating and aggravating factor.
  4. Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) is the consolidated and widespread technique for enzymatic amplification of DNA sequences (Gibbs 1990).
  5. The defense chose the abbreviated trial procedure [_giudizio abbreviato_] which provides for the decision to be taken essentially on the basis of the case file as it stands. This automatically leads to a reduction of the penalty, which would otherwise have corresponded to 30 years imprisonment for this kind of crime. Moreover, in Como case, the judge decided not to take into account the aggravating circumstances and not to increase the penalty because of the defendant’s partial incapacity.
  6. This nosographic term was first introduced in DSM-IV in 1994.
  7. Also ethicists (e.g. Farisco and Petrini 2012, 2014; Santoni de Sio 2013) and some scientists (Forzano et al. 2010) showed reluctance, while journalists presented the cases in skeptical tones (see newspapers headlines in footnote 2). More recently, concerns about the Italian cases were expressed in the International debate as well (e.g. Baum 2013; González-Tapia and Obsuth 2015; Gkotsi and Gasser 2016). Unfortunately there are no data about public perception of neurolaw in Italy (for a U.S. survey see Shen and Gromet 2015). Very recently the Bar Association of Rome (Meeting, November 9, 2015) made available and recommended to Italian lawyers the reading of a Memorandum about legal capacities in the light of neuroscience, written by academics of related fields in October 2015 at the University of Padoa and to be updated every three years (http://www.ordineavvocatiroma.it/documenti/Minghelli%20-%20Patavino.pdf). Although presenting potentialities of the use of neurotechnologies in trials, the document discusses possible limitations, including worries about reductionist explanations.
  8. This formulation might not alarm consequentialists about punishment since they are only interested in the consequences of crimes (Greene and Cohen 2004, for a discussion in the U.S. debate). However Italian criminal system contains both retributivist and consequentialist approaches to punishment.
  9. For more recent references see footnote 7.
  10. Possible impacts of epigenetics on the law attracted recently legal scholars (see the special issue of the Behavioral Sciences & the Law vol. 33, no. 5; and the introduction to the issue by Gunter and Felthous 2015).
  11. Genetic information sharing in the EU is regulated by Law 2009/85 which allowed for the creation of a National DNA Database but imposes several constrains: data may be acquired only on specific sets of subjects (art. 9), typically those arrested caught in the act or prosecuted; direct identification of subjects is not allowed (art. 12); and only judicial authorities may access data for identification (art. 12). Finally, in certain cases, the law authorizes the deletion of data (art. 13).
  12. In Italy the Data Protection Authority (DPA) (Garante per la protezione dei dati personali) is the independent authority with the role of protecting fundamental rights and freedom in connection with privacy and confidentiality.
  13. The Italian Supreme Court (Corte Suprema di Cassazione), the major court of last resort in Italy, ensures the correct application of law and resolves disputes among lower courts.

References

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work has been supported by the Italian Ministry of Education, University and Research (MIUR)’s Premium Project, “The Administration of Justice in Italy: the Case of Neurogenetics and Neuroscience”. We thank Prof. Adina Roskies for useful comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Molecular Medicine, Faculty of Pharmacy and Medicine, Museum of History of Medicine, Sapienza University of Rome, Viale dell’Università 34/a, 00185, Rome, Italy
    Elisabetta Sirgiovanni & Gilberto Corbellini
  2. Institute of Biomedical Technologies Rome Section, National Research Council of Italy, Via dei Taurini 19, 00185, Rome, Italy
    Cinzia Caporale

Authors

  1. Elisabetta Sirgiovanni
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
  2. Gilberto Corbellini
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
  3. Cinzia Caporale
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence toElisabetta Sirgiovanni.

Rights and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sirgiovanni, E., Corbellini, G. & Caporale, C. A recap on Italian neurolaw: epistemological and ethical issues.Mind Soc 16, 17–35 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11299-016-0188-1

Download citation

Keywords