Promises and Perils of Adolescent Neuroscience and Law

Read the Harvard Crimson‘s summary of the event!

Description

The neuroscience of adolescent brain development has had increasing impact on American jurisprudence. The U.S. Supreme Court relied on this neuroscience in Roper v. Simmons (2005) in barring execution for capital crimes committed as a juvenile and in Miller v. Alabama (2012) in holding that mandatory life without possibility of parole for juveniles is also unconstitutional. This panel examined the implications of developmental neuroscience for law in specific domains including death penalty mitigation for young adults over age 18 such as the Tsarnaev case, a developmentally informed view of Miranda and Competence to Stand Trial for juveniles, trial of youth as adults, and conditions of confinement in juvenile and adult incarceration. The panel also discussed the promises and perils for constitutional jurisprudence, legal and public policy reform, and trial practice of relying upon a complex body of science as it emerges.

The panel discussion was followed by the 2015 Petrie-Flom Center Open House.

Panelists

Learn More!

Couldn’t attend? Check out our speakers’ slide presentations!

For more on the neuroscience of the adolescent brain, criminal sentencing, and the Tsarnaev case, check out these pieces from our panelists!

This event was free and open to the public.

Part of the Project on Law and Applied Neuroscience, cosponsored by the Center for Law, Brain and Behavior at Massachusetts General Hospital and the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics at Harvard Law School.