Analysis critiques neuroscience’s interpretations of actus reus, highlighting flawed assumptions about voluntary acts.
This article examines the claim that experimental neuroscience is key to an improved understanding of actus reus. It focuses on the assumptions made by neuroscientists about the nature of actus reus and their principal conclusion that the voluntary act component thereof is essentially an endogenous process originating in the brain. The article contends that neuroscientists have misconstrued what lawyers and judges mean by actus reus such that their experimental findings on the subject are irremediably flawed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Finbarr McAuley (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: