Search results

"Dit boek bevat de resultaten van een rechtsvergelijkend onderzoek naar de tweeledige vraag a) welke werkwijzen Duitsland, Engeland (en Wales), Ierland en Italië (naast Nederland) hanteren voor het in beslag nemen en confisqueren van vermogen met een vermoedelijk criminele herkomst in situaties zonder vervolgbare of veroordeelde dader, en b) tegen welke belemmeringen de Nederlandse autoriteiten en de autoriteiten in de genoemde landen aanlopen in geval van grensoverschrijdende samenwerking in dergelijke gevallen. Specifieke aandacht gaat uit naar beslag en confiscatie van I) criminele opbrengsten onder zogenoemde 'windhappers' (personen die geen (of nauwelijks) geregistreerd inkomen hebben, maar wel veel geld te besteden hebben), II) erfenissen die (geheel of ten dele) bestaan uit de opbrengsten van (vermoede) strafbare activiteiten van de erflater, III) tegoeden die zijn aangetroffen op onbeheerde bankrekeningen, en IV) (grote) hoeveelheden cash geld die zijn aangetroffen zonder dat een relatie tot een bepaalde persoon valt aan te wijzen

Intro -- Preface -- Contents -- Notes on Contributors -- Legal Perspectives -- Possibilities and Limitations of Neuroscience in the Legal Process -- Introduction -- Action Responsibility -- Mens Rea -- Capacity Responsibility -- Liability and Responsibility -- Prevention of Re-offending -- Summary and Conclusions -- References -- Νeuroscience and Dangerousness Evaluations: The Effect of Neuroscience Evidence on Judges. Findings from a Focus Group Study -- Introduction -- Neuroscience as a Better Tool for Evaluations of Future Dangerousness/recidivism Risk? -- Ethical and Legal Concerns: Neuroscience as a Risk for Offenders' Individual Rights -- The Effect of Neurobiological Evidence on Judges and Jurors: Findings from Studies -- The Effect of Neuroscientific Evidence on Judges: First Findings of a Pilot Study from Focus Groups -- Selecting the Focus Groups' Method -- Team Design and Composition -- Findings from the Focus Group Consisting of Judges and Lawyers -- Contribution of Neuroscientific Data to the Improvement of the Quality of Psychiatric Expert Opinions -- The Relationship Between an Expert Opinion Incorporating Neuroscientific Data as Means of Evidence and the Principle of Free Evaluation of Evidence -- The Issue of Dangerousness: Correlation Between Dangerousness, Mental Illness and Neurobiological Data -- Neurobiological Data as Evidence of Reduced Responsibility in the Context of a Defence Strategy -- Discussion -- Limitations -- Conclusion -- References -- The Need for a Partial Defence of Diminished Capacity and the Potential Role of the Cognitive Sciences in Helping Frame That Defence -- Introduction -- Responsibility, Culpability and Fair Fault Ascription -- Blameworthiness and Hard Determinism -- The Current Situation: Determinism v. Free Will, Responsibility, Rationality and Blame -- Lessons from Neuroscience.

Extended Reality (XR) systems, such as Virtual Reality (VR) and Augmented Reality (AR), provide a digital simulation either of a complete environment, or of particular objects within the real world. Today, XR is used in a wide variety of settings, including gaming, design, engineering, and the military. In addition, XR has been introduced into psychology, cognitive sciences and biomedicine for both basic research as well as diagnosing or treating neurological and psychiatric disorders. In the context of XR, the simulated 'reality' can be controlled and people may safely learn to cope with their feelings and behavior. XR also enables to simulate environments that cannot easily be accessed or created otherwise. Therefore, extended Reality systems are thought to be a promising tool in the resocialization of criminal offenders, more specifically for purposes of risk assessment and treatment of forensic patients. Deploying XR in forensic settings raises ethical and legal intricacies which are not raised in case of most other healthcare applications. Whereas a variety of normative issues of XR have been discussed in the context of medicine and consumer usage, the debate on XR in forensic settings is, as yet, straggling. By discussing two general arguments in favor of employing XR in criminal justice, and two arguments calling for caution in this regard, the present paper aims to broaden the current ethical and legal debate on XR applications to their use in the resocialization of criminal offenders, mainly focusing on forensic patients.