Glad scientific investigation in hard evidence in jurisprudence finally receives an official name, and with it, I assume, a modicum sheen of intellectual respectability.
By "science" in this context, I refer to the neurobiological bases of *individual* human behavior, not group, not political ideology, and certainly not attributions in theology. On the last, I have personally never understood why or wherefrom the accusations arose that Common Good Constitutionalism bears with it "theocratic" underpinnings, even as its proponents ascribe to classical philosophers, many of whom preceded Christ by centuries.
______________
In the beginning, Law came to be to regulate human behavior when conflicts arose between Person A and Person B.
This point has crucial significance when the the issue of rightness v. wrongness of an act is not adjudge-able unless an inquiry is launched to explain why A and B *behave* differently, and prior to the behavior, *think* differently. That thought precedes act is dictum presumptive in criminal law (cf M’Naghten), and, I should think, unchallengeable as a matter of observation of Nature and what we thus far know in Biology and Neurology.
Finally, law addresses real life and real people. It is in vivo. As such, for law to serve justice, evidence from science (again, I stress the neurobiological bases of behavior) must be considered in the adjudication of a case.
As to the generalizability of this presently stated thesis, I submit it is of acute relevance so long as the court is called on to adjudge who is guilty who is not in criminal cases, or delineate and clarify the issue(s) in civil cases.
Glad scientific investigation in hard evidence in jurisprudence finally receives an official name, and with it, I assume, a modicum sheen of intellectual respectability.
By "science" in this context, I refer to the neurobiological bases of *individual* human behavior, not group, not political ideology, and certainly not attributions in theology. On the last, I have personally never understood why or wherefrom the accusations arose that Common Good Constitutionalism bears with it "theocratic" underpinnings, even as its proponents ascribe to classical philosophers, many of whom preceded Christ by centuries.
______________
In the beginning, Law came to be to regulate human behavior when conflicts arose between Person A and Person B.
This point has crucial significance when the the issue of rightness v. wrongness of an act is not adjudge-able unless an inquiry is launched to explain why A and B *behave* differently, and prior to the behavior, *think* differently. That thought precedes act is dictum presumptive in criminal law (cf M’Naghten), and, I should think, unchallengeable as a matter of observation of Nature and what we thus far know in Biology and Neurology.
Finally, law addresses real life and real people. It is in vivo. As such, for law to serve justice, evidence from science (again, I stress the neurobiological bases of behavior) must be considered in the adjudication of a case.
As to the generalizability of this presently stated thesis, I submit it is of acute relevance so long as the court is called on to adjudge who is guilty who is not in criminal cases, or delineate and clarify the issue(s) in civil cases.