Neuroscientific Discoveries and the Reconstruction of Legal Culpability: How Brain-Based Evidence Challenges Traditional Models of Criminal Responsibility

This article examines how contemporary discoveries in cognitive neuroscience, neurocriminology, and decision-making science challenge traditional binary understandings of legal culpability. Moving beyond classical assumptions of unitary free will, the analysis evaluates empirical findings on volition, inhibitory control, neural readiness potentials, prefrontal dysfunction, and altered agency attribution. The study proposes that neuroscientific evidence does not eliminate criminal responsibility, but rather compels a reconstruction of culpability as a graded normative concept informed by demonstrable neurofunctional capacities. A scientifically grounded model of neuro-graded culpability is introduced to reconcile mens rea doctrine, criminal agency, and contemporary brain-based evidence.