Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T02:04:22.270Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Bibliography

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 August 2022

Sjors Ligthart
Sjors Ligthart
Affiliation:
Tilburg University, The Netherlands
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Coercive Brain-Reading in Criminal Justice
An Analysis of European Human Rights Law
 , pp. 267 - 288
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aall, J., ‘Waiver of Human Rights. Waiver of Procedural Rights According to ECHR Article 6’, Nordic Journal of Human Rights 2011, 29(2–3), pp. 206–278.Google Scholar
Addo, K. & Grief, N., ‘Does Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights Enshrine Absolute Rights?’, European Journal of International Law 1998, 9(3), pp. 51–524.Google Scholar
Aharoni, E. et al., ‘Neuroprediction of Future Rearrest’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2013, 110(15), pp. 6223–6228.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aharoni, E. et al., ‘Predictive Accuracy in the Neuroprediction of Rearrest’, Society for Neuroscience 2014, 9(4), pp. 332–336.Google Scholar
Alegre, S., ‘Rethinking Freedom of Thought for the 21st Century’, European Human Rights Law Review 2017, 2017(3), pp. 221–233.Google Scholar
Alimardani, A. & Chin, J., ‘Neurolaw in Australia: The Use of Neuroscience in Australian Criminal Proceedings’, Neuroethics 2019, 12, pp. 255–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, R. J. & Mace, M. K., ‘The Self-incrimination Clause Explained and its Future Predicted’, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 2004, 94(2), pp. 243–293.Google Scholar
Aloui, K., Nait-Ali, A. & Naceur, M. S., ‘Using Brain Prints as New Biometric Feature for Human Recognition’, Pattern Recognition Letters 2018, 113, pp. 38–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alschuler, A. W., ‘A Peculiar Privilege in Historical Perspective’, in Helmolz, R. H. et al. (eds.), The Privilege against Self-incrimination: Its Origins and Development, Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1997, pp. 181–204.Google Scholar
Ambach, W. et al., ‘A Concealed Information Test with Multimodal Measurement’, International Journal of Psychophysiology 2010, 75(3), pp. 258–267.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ambach, W. & Gamer, M., ‘Physiological Measures in the Detection of Deception and Concealed Information’, in Rosenfeld, J. P. (ed.), Detecting Concealed Information and Deception: Recent Developments, London: Academic Press 2018, pp. 3–33.Google Scholar
Anderson, S., ‘Coercion’, in Zalte, E. N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (https://plato.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/encyclopedia/archinfo.cgi?entry=coercion; Summer 2021).Google Scholar
Anderson, S. A., ‘The Enforcement Approach to Coercion’, Journal of Ethics & Social Philosophy 2011, 5(1), pp. 1–31.Google Scholar
Andorno, R., ‘The Relevance of Human Rights for Dealing with the Challenges Posed by Genetics’, in von Arnauld, A., von der Decken, K. & Susi, M. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of New Human Rights: Recognition, Novelty, Rhetoric, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2020, pp. 335–349.Google Scholar
Appelbaum, P. S., ‘Assessment of Patients’ Competence to Consent to Treatment’, The New England Journal of Medicine 2007, 357(18), pp. 1834–1840.Google Scholar
Appelbaum, P. S, Lidz, C. W. & Klitzman, R., ‘Voluntariness of Consent to Research: A Conceptual Model’, Hastings Center Report 2009, 39(1), pp. 30–39.Google Scholar
Arai-Takahashi, Y., The Margin of Appreciation Doctrine and the Principle of Proportionality in the Jurisprudence of the ECHR, Antwerp, Oxford, and New York: Intersentia 2002.Google Scholar
Ashworth, A. J., ‘Excluding Evidence as Protecting Rights’, Criminal Law Review 1977, pp. 723–735.Google Scholar
Ashworth, A. J., ‘Exploring the Integrity Principle in Evidence and Procedure’, in Mirfield, P. & Smith, R. (eds.), Essays for Colin Tapper, New York: Oxford University Press 2003, pp. 107–125.Google Scholar
Ashworth, A. J., ‘Human Rights: Article 3 – Article 6’, Criminal Law Review 2007, pp. 717–721.Google Scholar
Ashworth, A. J., ‘Self-incrimination in European Human Rights Law – A Pregnant Pragmatism?’, Cardozo Law Review 2008, 30(3), pp. 751–774.Google Scholar
Ashworth, A. J., ‘The Exclusion of Evidence Obtained by Violating a Fundamental Right: Pragmatism before Principle in the Strasbourg Jurisprudence’, in Roberts, P. & Hunter, J. (eds.), Criminal Evidence and Human Rights: Reimagining Common Law Procedural Traditions, Oxford; Portland: Hart Publishing 2012.Google Scholar
Ashworth, A. J. & Zedner, L., Preventive Justice, New York: Oxford University Press 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bachmaier, L., ‘The European Court of Human Rights on Negotiated Justice and Coercion’, European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice 2016, 26(3), pp. 236–259.Google Scholar
Baird, A., Kennett, J. & Schier, E., ‘Homicide and Dementia: An Investigation of Legal, Ethical, and Clinical Factors of Australian Legal Cases’, International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 2020, 71, pp. 1–13.Google Scholar
Barkhuysen, T. & van Emmerik, M., ‘Right to an Effective Remedy’, in van Dijk, P. et al. (eds.), Theory and Practice of the European Convention on Human Rights, Cambridge: Intersentia 2018, pp. 1035–1061.Google Scholar
Barkhuysen, T. et al., ‘Right to a Fair Trial’, in van Dijk, P. et al. (eds.), Theory and Practice of the European Convention on Human Rights, Cambridge: Intersentia 2018, pp. 497–654.Google Scholar
Bartholow, B. D. & Amodio, D. M., ‘Using Event-Related Brain Potentials in Social Psychological Research’, in Rugg, M. D. & Coles, M. G. H. (eds.), Electrophysiology of Mind. Event-Related Brain Potentials and Cognition, Oxford: Oxford University Press 1996.Google Scholar
Bauer, A. J. & Just, A., ‘Neural Representations of Concept Knowledge’, in de Zubicaray, G. I. & Schiller, N. O. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Neurolinguistics, New York: Oxford University Press 2019, pp. 519–547.Google Scholar
Baumbach, T., ‘Chilling Effect as a European Court of Human Rights’ Concept in Media Law Cases’, Bergen Journal of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice 2018, 6(1), pp. 92–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bedard, H. L., ‘The Potential for Bioprediction in Criminal Law’, The Colombia Science & Technology Law Review 2017, XVIII, pp. 268–325.Google Scholar
Beecher, H. K., ‘Some Fallacies and Errors in the Application of the Principle of Consent in Human Experimentation’, Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics 1962, 3(2), pp. 141–145.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ben-Shakhar, G., ‘Countermeasures’, in Verschuere, B., Ben-Shakhar, G. & Meijer, E. (eds.), Memory Detection: Theory and Application of the Concealed Information Test, New York: Cambridge University Press 2011.Google Scholar
Ben-Shakhar, G., ‘Current Research and Potential Applications of the Concealed Information Test: An Overview’, Frontiers in Psychology 2012, 3, Article 342.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bentham, J., Rationale of Judicial Evidence, Vol. 5, collected by D. S. Berkowitz & S. E. Thorne, London: Hunt and Clarke 1978.Google Scholar
Berg, J. W. et al., Informed Consent: Legal Theory and Clinical Practice, New York: Oxford University Press 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berman, M., ‘The Normative Functions of Coercion Claims’, Legal Theory 2002, 8(1), 45–89.Google Scholar
Bijlsma, J. et al., ‘Legal Insanity and Risk: An International Perspective on the Justification of Indeterminate Preventive Commitment’, International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 2019, 66(September–October), pp. 1–6.Google ScholarPubMed
Biondi, A. et al., ‘Are the Brains of Monozygotic Twins Similar? A Three-Dimensional MR Study’, American Journal of Neuroradiology 1996, 19(7), pp. 1361–1367.Google Scholar
Blair, R. J. R., ‘Neuroimaging of Psychopathy and Antisocial Behavior: A Targeted Review’, Current Psychiatry Reports 2010, 12(1), pp. 76–82.Google Scholar
Blair, R. J. R., ‘The Neurobiology of Impulsive Aggression’, Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology 2016, 26(1), pp. 4–9.Google Scholar
Birks, D. & Douglas, T. (eds.), Treatment for Crime: Philosophical Essays on Neurointerventions in Criminal Justice, New York: Oxford University Press 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blitz, M. J., Searching Minds by Scanning Brains, Cham: Palgrave Macmillan 2017.Google Scholar
Bobes, M. A. et al., ‘Linkage of Functional and Structural Anomalies in the Left Amygdala of Reactive-Aggressive Men’, SCAN 2013, 8(8), pp. 928–936.Google Scholar
Bomann-Larsen, L., ‘Voluntary Rehabilitation? On Neurotechnological Behavioural Treatment, Valid Consent and (In)appropriate Offers’, Neuroethics 2013, 6(1), pp. 65–77.Google Scholar
Bossuyt, M. J., Guide to the ‘Travaux préparatoires’ of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bottalico, B. & Santosuosso, A., ‘Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity’ in the Italian Jurisprudence’, in Moratti, S. & Patterson, D. (eds.), Legal Insanity and the Brain: Science, Law and European Courts, Portland: Hart Publishing 2016, pp. 121–124.Google Scholar
Bradley, M. T. et al., ‘Leakage of Information to Innocent Suspects’, in Verschuere, B., Ben-Shakhar, G. & Meijer, E. (eds.), Memory Detection: Theory and Application of the Concealed Information Test, New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 187–199.Google Scholar
Brenner, D. J. & Hall, E. J., ‘Computed Tomography – An Increasing Source of Radiation Exposure’, The New England Journal of Medicine 2007, 57(22), pp. 2277–2284.Google Scholar
Brown, T. & Murphy, E., ‘Through a Scanner Darkly: Functional Neuroimaging as Evidence of a Criminal Defendant’s Past Mental States’, Stanford Law Review 2010, 62, pp. 1119–1208.Google Scholar
Brownsword, R., ‘Regulating Brain Imaging: Questions of Privacy, Informed Consent, and Human Dignity’, in Richmond, S., Rees, G. & Edwards, S. J. L. (eds.), I Know What You’re Thinking: Brain Imaging and Mental Privacy, Croydon: Oxford University Press 2012, pp. 223–244.Google Scholar
Bublitz, J. C., ‘My Mind Is Mine!? Cognitive Liberty as a Legal Concept’, in Hildt, W. & Franke, A. G. (eds.), Cognitive Enhancement, Dordrecht: Springer 2013, pp. 233–264.Google Scholar
Bublitz, J. C., ‘Freedom of Thought in the Age of Neuroscience’, Archiv Für Rechts- Und Sozialphilosophie 2014, 100, pp. 1–25.Google Scholar
Bublitz, J. C., ‘Cognitive Liberty or the International Human Right to Freedom of Thought’, in Clausen, J. & Levy, N. (eds.), Handbook of Neuroethics, Dordrecht: Springer Science + Business Media Dordrecht 2015, pp. 1309–1333.Google Scholar
Bublitz, J. C., ‘“The Soul Is in the Prison of the Body” – Mandatory Moral Enhancement, Punishment & Rights against Neuro-Rehabilitation’, in Birks, D. & Douglas, T. (eds.), Treatment for Crime: Philosophical Essays on Neurointerventions in Criminal Justice, New York: Oxford University Press 2018.Google Scholar
Bublitz, J. C., ‘The Nascent Right to Psychological Integrity and Mental Self-determination’, in von Arnauld, A., von der Decken, K. & Susi, M. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of New Human Rights: Recognition, Novelty, Rhetoric, Padstow: Cambridge University Press 2020, pp. 387–403.Google Scholar
Bublitz, J. C., ‘Freedom of Thought as an International Human Right: Elements of a Theory of a Living Right’, in Blitz, M. J. & Bublitz, J. C. (eds.), The Law and Ethics of Freedom of Thought, Volume 1, Cham: Palgrave Macmillan 2021, pp. 49–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bublitz, J. C., ‘Novel Neurorights: From Nonsense to Substance’, Neuroethics 2022, 15, Article nr. 7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bublitz, J. C. & Merkel, R., ‘Crimes against Minds: On Mental Manipulations, Harms and a Human Right to Mental Self-determination’, Criminal Law and Philosophy 2014, 8(1), pp. 51–71.Google Scholar
Buelens, W., Herijgers, C. & Illegems, S., ‘The View of the European Court of Human Rights on Competent Patients’ Right of Informed Consent: Research in the Light of Article 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights’, European Journal of Health Law 2016, 23(5), pp. 481–509.Google Scholar
Burns, J. M & Swerdlow, R. H., ‘Right Orbitofrontal Tumor with Pedophilia Symptom and Constructional Apraxia Sign’, Archives of Neurolaw 2003, 60, pp. 437–440.Google ScholarPubMed
Bychawska-Siniarska, D., Protecting the Right to Freedom of Expression under the European Convention on Human Rights. A Handbook for Legal Practitioners, Strasbourg: Council of Europe 2017.Google Scholar
Catley, P. & Claydon, L., ‘The Use of Neuroscientific Evidence in the Courtroom by Those Accused of Criminal Offenses in England and Wales, Journal of Law and the Biosciences 2015, 2(3), pp. 510–549.Google Scholar
Chandler, J., ‘The Use of Neuroscientific Evidence in Canadian Criminal Proceedings’, Journal of Law and the Biosciences 2015, 2(3), pp. 550–579.Google ScholarPubMed
Chau, P., ‘Excluding Integrity? Revisiting Non-Consequentialist Justifications for Excluding Improperly Obtained Evidence in Criminal Trials’, in Hunter, J. et al. (eds.), The Integrity of Criminal Process: From Theory into Practice, Oxford – Portland: Hart Publishing 2016, pp. 268–279.Google Scholar
Choo, A. L.-T., Abuse of Process and Judicial Stays of Criminal Proceedings, New York: Oxford University Press 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Choo, A. L.-T., The Privilege against Self-incrimination and Criminal Justice, Oxford: Hart Publishing 2013.Google Scholar
Christ, S. E. et al., ‘The Contributions of Prefrontal Cortex and Executive Control to Deception: Evidence from Activation Likelihood Estimate Meta-analyses’, Cerebral Cortex 2009, 19, pp. 1557–1566.Google Scholar
Christoffersen, J., Fair Balance: Proportionality, Subsidiarity and Primarity in the European Convention on Human Rights, Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2009.Google Scholar
Claydon, L., ‘Brain-Based Mind Reading for Lawyers: Reflecting on Possibilities and Perils’, Journal for Law and the Biosciences 2017, 4(3), pp. 594–598.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Corstens, G. J. M., Het Nederlands strafprocesrecht, bewerkt door M. J. Borgers & T. Kooijmans, Deventer: Wolters Kluwer 2021.Google Scholar
Committee on Bioethics of the Council of Europe, Strategic Action Plan on Human Rights and Technologies in Biomedicine (2020–2025), Adopted by the Committee on Bioethics (DH-BIO) at Its 16th Meeting (19–21 November 2019).Google Scholar
Council of Europe, Guide on Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Strasbourg: Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights 2020a.Google Scholar
Council of Europe, The European Convention on Human Rights: A Living Instrument, Strasbourg: Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights 2020b.Google Scholar
Craig, J. N., ‘Incarceration, Direct Brain Intervention, and the Right to Mental Integrity – A Reply to Thomas Douglas’, Neuroethics 2016, 9, pp. 107–118.Google Scholar
Curry, P., Viernes, D. & Sharma, D., ‘Perioperative Management of Traumatic Brain Injury’, International Journal of Critical Illness and Injury Science 2011, 1(1), pp. 27–35.Google Scholar
Van der Cruyssen, I. et al., ‘Is a Picture Worth a Thousand Words? Congruency between Encoding and Testing Improves Detection of Concealed Memories’, Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition 2021, doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2021.03.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dagogo, I. & Shaw, A. T., ‘Tumor Heterogeneity and Resistance to Cancer Therapies’, Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology 2018, 15(2), pp. 81–94.Google Scholar
Daly, Y. M., ‘Ireland: Curtailment of the Right to Silence through Statutory Adverse Inferences’, New Journal of European Criminal Law 2021, 12(3), pp. 347–364.Google Scholar
Delfin, C. et al., ‘Prediction of Recidivism in a Long-Term Follow-Up of Forensic Psychiatric Patients: Incremental Effects of Neuroimaging Data’, PLoS ONE 2019, doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0217127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dennis, I., ‘Instrumental Protection, Human Right or Functional Necessity? Reassessing the Privilege against Self-incrimination’, The Cambridge Law Journal 1995, 54(2), pp. 342–376.Google Scholar
Desmoulin-Canselier, S., ‘Another Perspective on “Neurolaw”: The Use of Brain Imaging in Civil Litigation Regarding Mental Competence’, in D’Aloia, A. & Errigo, M. C. (eds.), Neuroscience and Law: Complicated Crossings and New Perspectives, pp. 529–547.Google Scholar
Dolinko, D., ‘Is There a Rationale for the Privilege against Self-incrimination?’, UCLA Law Review 1986, 33(4), pp. 1063–1148.Google Scholar
Douglas, T. et al., ‘Coercion, Incarceration, and Chemical Castration: An Argument from Autonomy’, Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 2013, 10(3), 393–405.Google Scholar
Douglas, T. et al., ‘Risk Assessment Tools in Criminal Justice and Forensic Psychiatry: The Need for Better Data’, European Psychiatry 2017, 42, pp. 134–137.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Douglas, T. & Forsberg, L., ‘Three Rationales for a Legal Right to Mental Integrity’, in Ligthart, S. et al. (eds.), Neurolaw: Advances in Neuroscience, Justice & Security, Cham: Palgrave Macmillan 2021, pp. 179–202.Google Scholar
Drewer, D. & Ellermann, J., ‘May the (Well-Balanced) Force Be with Us! The Launch of the European Counter Terrorism Centre (ECTC)’, Computer Law & Security 2016, 32(2), pp. 165–204.Google Scholar
Drizin, S. A. & Leo, R. A., ‘The Problem of False Confessions in the Post-DNA World’, North Carolina Law Review 2004, 82, pp. 892–1007.Google Scholar
Drysdale, A. T. et al., ‘Resting-State Connectivity Biomarkers Define Neurophysiological Subtypes of Depression’, Nature Medicine 2017, 23(1), pp. 28–38.Google Scholar
Duffy, P. J., ‘Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights’, International and Comparative Law Quarterly 1983, 32, pp. 316–346.Google Scholar
Dukhart, J. et al., ‘Towards Increasing the Clinical Applicability of Machine Learning Biomarkers in Psychiatry’, Nature Human Behaviour 2021, 5, pp. 431–432.Google Scholar
Edersheim, J. G., Brendel, R. W. & Price, B., ‘Neuroimaging, Diminished Capacity and Mitigation’, in Simpson, J. R. (ed.), Neuroimaging in Forensic Psychiatry. From Clinic to the Courtroom, Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell 2012, pp. 163–193.Google Scholar
Edwards, S. J. L., ‘Protecting Privacy Interests in the Brain Images: The Limits of Consent’, in Richmond, S., Rees, G. & Edwards, S. J. L. (eds.), I Know What You’re Thinking: Brain Imaging and Mental Privacy, Croydon: Oxford University Press 2012, pp. 245–260.Google Scholar
Ellwanger, J. et al., ‘Detecting Simulated Amnesia for Autobiographical and Recently Learned Information Using the P300 Event-Related Potential’, International Journal of Psychophysiology 1996, 23(1–2), pp. 9–23.Google Scholar
de Muñagorri, R. Encinas & Saas, C., ‘France. Is the Evidence Too Cerebral to Be Cartesian?’, in Moratti, S. & Patterson, D. (eds.), Legal Insanity and the Brain: Science, Law and European Courts, Portland: Hart Publishing 2016, pp. 79–110.Google Scholar
Evans, M. D., Religious Liberty and International Law in Europe, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, C., Freedom of Religion under the European Convention on Human Rights, New York: Oxford University Press 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, M. D. & Morgan, R., Preventing Torture: A Study of the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, New York: Oxford University Press 1998.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eyal, N., ‘Informed Consent’, in Zalta, E. N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2019 Edition).Google Scholar
Faden, R., Beauchamp, T. L. & King, N. M. P., A History and Theory of Informed Consent, New York: Oxford University Press 1968.Google Scholar
Farah, M. J. et al., ‘Functional MRI-Based Lie Detection: Scientific and Societal Challenges’, Nature Reviews Neuroscience 2014, 15, pp. 123–131.Google Scholar
Farah, M. J. & Gillihan, S. J., ‘Diagnostic Brain Imaging in Psychiatry: Current Uses and Future Prospects’, Virtual Mentor 2012, 14(6), pp. 464–471.Google Scholar
Farahany, N. A., ‘Incriminating Thoughts’, Stanford Law Review 2012a, 64, pp. 351–408.Google Scholar
Farahany, N. A., ‘Searching Secrets’, University of Pennsylvania Law Review 2012b, 160, pp. 1239–1307.Google Scholar
Farahany, N. A., ‘Neuroscience and Behavioral Genetics in US Criminal Law: An Empirical Analysis’, Journal of Law and the Biosciences 2015, 2(3), pp. 485–509.Google ScholarPubMed
Farwell, L. A., ‘Brain Fingerprinting: A Comprehensive Tutorial Review of Detection of Concealed Information with Event-Related Brain Potentials’, Cognitive Neurodynamics 2012, 6, pp. 115–154.Google Scholar
Farwell, L. A. & Makeig, T. H., ‘Farwell Brain Fingerprinting in the Case of Harrington v. State’, Open Court 2005, X(3), pp. 7–10.Google Scholar
Farwell, L. A., Richardson, D. C. & Richardson, G. M., ‘Brain Fingerprinting Field Studies Comparing P300-MERMER and P300 Brainwave Responses in the Detection of Concealed Information’, Cognitive Neurodynamics 2013, 7, pp. 263–299.Google Scholar
Fathaigh, R. Ó., ‘Article 10 and the Chilling Effect Principle’, E.H.R.L.R. 2013, 3, pp. 304–313.Google Scholar
Fawcett, J. E. S., The Application of the European Convention on Human Rights, Oxford: Clarendon Press 1987.Google Scholar
Fazel, S. et al., ‘Risk of Violent Crime in Individuals with Epilepsy and Traumatic Brain Injury: A 35-Year Swedish Population Study’, PLoS Medicine 2011, 8(12), pp. 1–8.Google Scholar
Federspiel, W., ‘1984 Arrives: Thought(crime), Technology, and the Constitution’, William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal 2008, 16(3), pp. 865–900.Google Scholar
Feinberg, J., The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law: Volume 3: Harm to Self, New York: Oxford University Press 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferrua, P., ‘Neuroscientific Evidence and Criminal Trial’, in D’Aloia, A. & Errigo, M. C. (eds.), Neuroscience and Law: Complicated Crossings and New Perspectives, Switzerland: Springer Nature 2020, pp. 403–414.Google Scholar
Finn, E. S. et al., ‘Functional Connectome Fingerprinting: Identifying Individuals Using Patterns of Brain Connectivity’, Nature Neuroscience 2015, 18(11), pp. 1664–1671.Google Scholar
Flinterman, K., ‘Compensation for Wrongful Conviction’, in van Dijk, P. et al. (eds.), Theory and Practice of the European Convention on Human Rights, Cambridge: Intersentia 2018.Google Scholar
Focquaert, F., Van Assche, K. & Sterckx, S., ‘Offering Neurointerventions to Offenders with Cognitive-Emotional Impairments: Ethical and Criminal Justice Aspects’, in Vincent, N. A., Nadelhoffer, T. & McCay, A. (eds.), Neurointerventions and the Law: Regulating Human Mental Capacity, New York: Oxford University Press 2020.Google Scholar
Focquaert, F. & Schermer, M., ‘Moral Enhancement: Do Means Matter Morally?’, Neuroethics 2015, 8, pp. 139–151.Google Scholar
Forsberg, L., ‘Anti-libidinal Interventions and the Law’, Human Rights Law Review 2021, 24(4), pp. 384–408.Google Scholar
Ford, E. & Aggerwal, N., ‘Neuroethics of Functional Neuroimaging in the Courtroom’, in Simpson, J. R. (ed.), Neuroimaging in Forensic Psychiatry. From Clinic to the Courtroom, Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell 2012, pp. 325–340.Google Scholar
Foqué, R. & ‘t Hart, A. C., Instrumentaliteit en rechtsbescherming, Arnhem: Gouda Quint 1990.Google Scholar
Fox, D., ‘Brain Imaging and the Bill of Rights: Memory Detection Technologies and American Criminal Justice’, American Journal of Bioethics 2008, 8(1), pp. 34–36.Google Scholar
Galligan, D. J., ‘The Right to Silence Reconsidered’, Current Legal Problems 1988, 41(1), pp. 69–92.Google Scholar
Gamer, M., ‘Mind Reading Using Neuroimaging Is This the Future of Deception Detection?’, European Psychologist 2014, 19(3), pp.172–183.Google Scholar
Gamer, M., Kosiol, D. & Vossel, G., ‘Strength of Memory Encoding Affects Physiological Responses in the Guilty Actions Test’, Biological Psychology 2010, 83(2), pp. 101–107.Google Scholar
Ganis, G. et al., ‘Lying in the Scanner: Covert Countermeasures Disrupt Deception Detection by Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging’, NeuroImage 2011, 55(1), pp. 312–319.Google Scholar
Ganis, G., ‘Detecting Deception and Concealed Information with Neuroimaging’, in Rosenfeld, J. P. (ed.), Detecting Concealed Information and Deception: Recent Developments, London: Academic Press 2018, pp. 145–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ganis, G. & Rosenfeld, J. P., ‘Neural Correlates of Deception’, in Illes, J. & Sahakian, B. J. (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Neuroethics, New York: Oxford University Press 2011, pp. 101–118.Google Scholar
Gaudet, L. M., Brain Fingerprinting, Scientific Evidence, and Daubert: A Cautionary Lesson from India’, Jurimetrics 2011, 51(3), pp. 293–318.Google Scholar
Gerstein, R. S., ‘Privacy and Self-incrimination’, Ethics 1970, 80(2), pp. 87–101.Google Scholar
Gerards, J., ‘Pluralism, Deference and the Margin of Appreciation Doctrine’, European Law Journal 2001, 17(1), pp. 80–120.Google Scholar
Gerards, J., ‘How to Improve the Necessity Test of the European Court of Human Rights’, International Journal of Constitutional Law 2013 11(2), pp. 466–490.Google Scholar
Gilbert, F., ‘A Threat to Autonomy? The Intrusion of Predictive Brain Implants’, AJOB Neuroscience 2015, 6(4), pp. 4–11.Google Scholar
Gkotsi, G. M. & Gasser, J., ‘Neuroscience in Forensic Psychiatry: From Responsibility to Dangerousness. Ethical and Legal Implications of Using Neuroscience for Dangerousness Assessments’, International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 2016, 46, pp. 58–67.Google Scholar
Glenn, A. L. & Raine, A., ‘Neurocriminology: Implications for the Punishment, Prediction and Prevention of Criminal Behaviour’, Nature Reviews Neuroscience 2014, 15(1), pp. 54–63.Google Scholar
Glenn, A. L., Focquaert, F. & Raine, A., ‘Prediction of Antisocial Behavior’, in Clausen, J. & Levy, N. (eds.), Handbook of Neuroethics, Dordrecht: Springer 2015, pp. 1689–1701.Google Scholar
Goering, S. et al., ‘Recommendations for Responsible Development and Application of Neurotechnologies’, Neuroethics 2021, 14, pp. 365–386.Google Scholar
Gomien, D., Short Guide to the European Convention on Human Rights, The Hague: Council of Europe Publishing 2005.Google Scholar
Goss, R., Criminal Fair Trial Rights: Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights, Oxford, Portland, and Oregon: Hart Publishing 2016.Google Scholar
Granacher, R. P. Jr., ‘Traumatic Brain Injury’, in Simpson, J. R. (ed.), Neuroimaging in Forensic Psychiatry. From Clinic to the Courtroom, Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell 2012, pp. 44–65.Google Scholar
Greely, H. T., ‘Neuroscience-Based Lie Detection: The Need for Regulation’, in Bizzi, E. et al. (eds.), Using Imaging to Identify Deceit. Scientific and Ethical Questions, Cambridge: American Academic of Arts and Sciences 2009, pp. 45–55.Google Scholar
Greely, H. T. & Wagner, A. D., Reference Guide on Neuroscience, Washington, DC: National Academies Press/Federal Judicial Center 2011.Google Scholar
Greenawalt, R. K., ‘Silence as a Moral and Constitutional Right’, William & Mary Law Review 1981, 23(1), pp. 15–71.Google Scholar
Greer, S., ‘Is the Prohibition against Torture, Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment Really ‘Absolute’ in International Human Rights Law?’, Human Rights Law Review 2015, 15, pp. 101–137.Google Scholar
Groenhuijsen, M. S. & Knigge, G., ‘Afronding en verantwoording. Algemeen deel’, in Groenhuijsen, M. S. & Knigge, G. (red.), Afronding en verantwoording. Eindrapport onderzoeksproject Strafvordering 2001, Deventer: Kluwer 2004, pp. 3–186.Google Scholar
Gross, M. L., The Brain Watchers, New York: Random House 1962.Google Scholar
Hafner, M., ‘Judging Homicide Defendants by Their Brains: An Empirical Study on the Use of Neuroscience in Homicide Trials in Slovenia’, Journal of Law and the Biosciences 2019, 6(1), pp. 226–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haller, S., ‘The Role of Central and Medial Amygdala in Normal and Abnormal Aggression: A Review of Classical Approaches’, Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 2018, 85, pp. 34–43.Google Scholar
Harmon-Jones, E. & Peterson, C. K., ‘Electroencephalographic Methods in Social and Personality Psychology’, in Harmon-Jones, E. & Beer, J. S. (eds.), Methods in Social Neuroscience, New York: Guilford Press, pp. 170–197.Google Scholar
Harris, D. J. et al., Harris, O’Boyle, and Warbrick: Law of the European Convention on Human Rights, New York: Oxford University Press 2018.Google Scholar
Haynes, J.-D. et al., ‘Reading Hidden Intentions in the Human Brain’, Current Biology 2007, 17(4), pp. 323–328.Google Scholar
Haynes, J.-D., ‘Brain Reading: Decoding Mental States from Brain Activity in Humans’, in Illes, J. & Sahakian, B. J. (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Neuroethics, New York: Oxford University Press 2011, pp. 1–13.Google Scholar
Health Quality Ontario, ‘The Appropriate Use of Neuroimaging in the Diagnostic Work-Up of Dementia: An Evidence-Based Analysis’, Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series 2014, 14(1), pp. 1–64.Google Scholar
van der Heide, O. et al., ‘High-Resolution In Vivo MR-STAT Using a Matrix-Free and Parallelized Reconstruction Algorithm’, NMR in Biomedicine 2020, 33(4), pp. 1–16.Google Scholar
de Hert, P. & Koops, B.-J., ‘Privacy is nog steeds een grondrecht: Pleidooi voor uitsluiting van onrechtmatig bewijs’, Ars Aequi 2001, 50(12), pp. 972–975.Google Scholar
Holley, B., ‘It’s All in Your Head: Neurotechnological Lie Detection and the Fourth and Fifth Amendments’, Developments in Mental Health Law 2009, 28(1), pp. 1–23.Google Scholar
Holloway, M. B., ‘One Image, One Thousand Incrimination Words: Images of Brain Activity and the Privilege against Self-incrimination’, Temple Journal of Science, Technology & Environmental Law 2008, XXVII(1), pp. 141–175.Google Scholar
Hu, X. et al., ‘Increasing the Number of Irrelevant Stimuli Increases Ability to Detect Countermeasures to the P300-Based Complex Trial Protocol for Concealed Information Detection’, Psychophysiology 2012, 49(1), pp. 85–95.Google Scholar
Hu, X. & Rosenfeld, J. P., ‘Combining the P300-Complex Trial-Based Concealed Information Test and the Reaction Time-Based Autobiographical Implicit Association Test in Concealed Memory Detection’, Psychophysiology 2012, 49(8), pp. 1090–1100.Google Scholar
Hughes, R. C., ‘Law and Coercion’, Philosophy Compass 2013, 8(3), pp. 231–240.Google Scholar
Huntjes, R. J. C., Verschuere, B. & McNally, R. J., ‘Inter-Identity Autobiographical Amnesia in Patients with Dissociative Identity Disorder’, PLoS ONE 2012, 7(7), pp. 1–8.Google Scholar
Hurd, A. J., ‘Reaching Past Fingerprints with Forensic Neuroimaging – Non-testimonial Evidence Exceeding the Fifth Amendment’s Grasp’, Loyola Law Review 2012, 58, pp. 213–249.Google Scholar
Iacono, W. G., ‘Encouraging the Use of the GKT’, in Verschuere, B., Ben-Shakhar, G. & Meijer, E. (eds.), Memory Detection: Theory and Application of the Concealed Information Test, New York: Cambridge University Press 2011.Google Scholar
Ienca, M., Common Human Rights Challenges Raised by Different Applications of Neurotechnologies in the Biomedical Field, Council of Europe, October 2021.Google Scholar
Ienca, M. & Andorno, R., ‘Towards New Human Rights in the Age of Neuroscience and Neurotechnology’, Life Sciences, Society and Policy 2017, 13(5), pp. 1–27.Google Scholar
Ienca, M., Haselager, P. & Emanuel, E. J., ‘Brain Leaks and Consumer Terotechnology’, Nature Biotechnology 2018, 36(9), pp. 805–810.Google Scholar
Illes, J. et al., ‘Ethical and Practical Considerations in Managing Incidental Findings in Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging’, Brain and Cognition 2002, 50(3), pp. 358–365.Google Scholar
Jacobs, P., Force-Feeding of Prisoners and Detainees on Hunger Strike: Right to Self-Determination versus Right to Intervention, Antwerpen: Intersentia 2012.Google Scholar
Jackson, J., ‘Re-conceptualizing the Right of Silence as an Effective Fair Trial Standard’, The International and Comparative Law Quarterly 2009, 58(4), pp. 835–861.Google Scholar
Jackson, J. D. & Summers, S. J., The Internationalization of Criminal Evidence. Beyond the Common Law and Civil Law Traditions, New York: Cambridge University Press 2012.Google Scholar
Jalbrzikowski, M., ‘Functional Connectome Fingerprinting Accuracy in Youths and Adults Is Similar When Examined on the Same Day and 1.5-Years Apart’, Human Brain Mapping 2020, 41, pp. 4187–4199.Google Scholar
Jeandarme, I. et al., ‘Field Validity of the HCR-20 in Forensic Medium Security Units in Flanders’, Psychology, Crime & Law 2017a, 23(4), pp. 305–322.Google Scholar
Jeandarme, I. et al., ‘PCL-R Field Validity in Prison and Hospital Settings’, Law and Human Behavior 2017b, 41(1), pp. 29–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones, O. D., Shall, J. D. & Shen, F. X. (eds.), Law and Neuroscience, New York: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business 2014.Google Scholar
Jong, C. D. De, The Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion or Belief in the United Nations (1946–1992) (diss. Maastricht), Antwerp, Groningen, and Oxford: Intersentia – Hart 2000.Google Scholar
Just, M. A. et al., ‘Machine Learning of Representations of Suicide and Emotion Concepts Identifies Suicidal Youth’, Nature Human Behaviour 2017, 1, pp. 911–919.Google Scholar
Just, M. A., Cherkassky, V. L. & Brant, D., ‘Reply to: Towards Increasing the Clinical Applicability of Machine Learning Biomarkers in Psychiatry’, Nature Human Behaviour 2021, 5, pp. 433–435.Google Scholar
Just, M. A., Wang, J. & Cherkassky, V. L., ‘Neural Representations of the Concepts in Simple Sentences: Conceptactivation Prediction and Context Effects’, NeuroImage 2017, 15, pp. 511–520.Google Scholar
Karcz, M. & Papadakos, P. J., ‘Respiratory Complications in the Postanesthesia Care Unit: A Review of Pathophysiological Mechanisms’, Canadian Journal of Respiratory Therapy 2013, 49(3), pp. 21–29.Google Scholar
Kassam, K. S. et al., ‘Identifying Emotions on the Basis of Neural Activation’, PLoS ONE 2013, 8(6), pp. 1–12.Google Scholar
Kanwisher, N., ‘The Use of fMRI in Lie Detection: What Has Been Shown and What Has Not’, in Bizzi, E. et al. (eds.), Using Imaging to Identify Deceit. Scientific and Ethical Questions, Cambridge: American Academic of Arts and Sciences 2009.Google Scholar
Kelly, B. D., ‘Brain Imaging in Clinical Psychiatry: Why?’, in Richmond, S., Rees, G. & Edwards, S. J. L. (eds.), I Know What You’re Thinking: Brain Imaging and Mental Privacy, Croydon: Oxford University Press 2012, pp. 111–122.Google Scholar
Kiehl, K. A. et al., ‘Age of Gray Matters: Neuroprediction of Recidivism’, NeuroImage: Clinical 2018, 19, pp. 813–823.Google Scholar
Kiener, M., ‘Coercion’, in Craig, E. (ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Version 2, 2020).Google Scholar
Kilbride, M. & Iuliano, J., ‘Neuro Lie Detection and Mental Privacy’, Maryland Law Review 2015, 75(1), pp. 163–193.Google Scholar
Kirchmair, L., ‘Objections to Coercive Neurocorrectives for Criminal Offenders – Why Offenders’ Human Rights Should Fundamentally Come First’, Criminal Justice Ethics 2019, 38(1), pp. 19–40.Google Scholar
Knack, N., Chandler, J. A. & Fedoroff, J. P., ‘A Qualitative Study of Forensic Patients’ Perceptions of Quasi-coercive Offers of Biological Treatment’, Behavioral Sciences and the Law 2020, 38(2), pp. 135–151.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koffemand, N. R., (The Right to) Personal Autonomy in the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights (nota opgesteld ten behoeve van de Staatscommissie Grondwet), Leiden: Leiden University 2010.Google Scholar
de Kogel, C. H. & Westgeest, E. J. M. C., ‘Neuroscientific and Behavioral Genetic Information in Criminal Cases in the Netherlands’, Journal of Law and the Biosciences 2015, 2(3), pp. 580–605.Google Scholar
Kooijmans, T. & Mevis, P. A. M., ICT in the Context of Criminal Procedure: The Netherlands, TLS/EUR/AIDP 2013.Google Scholar
Koops, E. J., Verdachte en ontsleutelplicht: hoe ver reikt nemo tenetur? Deventer: Kluwer 2000.Google Scholar
Koops, B.-J., ‘S. en Marper tegen het Verenigd Koninkrijk, No. 13, Dec. 04, 2008’, European Human Rights Cases 2009, 10(2), pp. 148–165.Google Scholar
Koops, E. J. & Stevens, L., ‘J. B. versus Saunders. De groeiende duisternis rond nemo tenetur’, Delikt & Delinkwent 2003, afl. 3, pp. 281–294.Google Scholar
Korponay, C. & Koenigs, M., ‘The Neurobiology of Antisocial and Amoral Behaviour’, in Moratti, S. & Patterson, D. (eds.), Legal Insanity and the Brain: Science, Law and European Courts, Portland: Hart Publishing 2016, pp. 10–39.Google Scholar
Kozel, F. A. et al., ‘Detecting Deception Using Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging’, Biological Psychiatry 2005, 58(8), pp. 605–613.Google Scholar
Kozel, F. A. et al., ‘Functional MRI Detection of Deception after Committing a Mock Sabotage Crime’, Journal of Forensic Sciences 2009, 54(1), pp. 220–231.Google Scholar
Kraft, C. J. & Giordano, J., ‘Integrating Brain Science and Law: Neuroscientific Evidence and Legal Perspectives on Protecting Individual Liberties’, Frontiers in Neuroscience 2017, 11, Article 621.Google Scholar
Kraphol, D. J., ‘Limits of the CIT in Criminal Cases’, in Verschuere, B., Ben-Shakhar, G. & Meijer, E. (eds.), Memory Detection: Theory and Application of the Concealed Information Test, New York: Cambridge University Press 2011.Google Scholar
Kuiper, R., Vormfouten. Juridische consequenties van vorm verzuimen in strafzaken (diss. Nijmegen), Deventer: Kluwer 2014.Google Scholar
Labkovsky, E. & Rosenfeld, J. P., ‘The P300-Based, Complex Trials Protocol for Concealed Information Detection Resists Any Number of Sequential Countermeasures against up to Five Irrelevant Stimuli’, Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback 2012, 37(1), pp. 1–10.Google Scholar
Lamar, M. et al., ‘Dementia’, in Simpson, J. R. (ed.), Neuroimaging in Forensic Psychiatry. From Clinic to the Courtroom, Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell 2012, pp. 68–80.Google Scholar
Lamberigts, S., ‘The Privilege against Self-incrimination: A Chameleon of Criminal Procedure’, New Journal of European Criminal Law 2016, 7(4), pp. 418–438.Google Scholar
Lamond, G., ‘The Coerciveness of Law’, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 2000, 20(1), pp. 39–62.Google Scholar
Langleben, D. D., Willard, D. F. X. & Moriarty, J. C., ‘Brain Imaging of Deception’, in Simpson, J. R. (red.), Neuroimaging in Forensic Psychiatry. From Clinic to the Courtroom, Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell 2012, pp. 217–236.Google Scholar
Lavazza, A., ‘Freedom of Thought and Mental Integrity: The Moral Requirements for Any Neural Prosthesis’, Frontiers in Neuroscience 2018, 12(82), pp. 1–10.Google Scholar
Lavazza, A., ‘Technology against Technology: A Case for Embedding Limits in Neurodevices to Protect Our Freedom of Thought’, in Blitz, M. J. & Bublitz, J. C. (eds.), The Law and Ethics of Freedom of Thought, Volume 1, Cham: Palgrave Macmillan 2021, pp. 259–287.Google Scholar
Lavrysen, L., ‘System of Restrictions’, in van Dijk, P. et al. (eds.), Theory and Practice of the European Convention on Human Rights, Cambridge: Intersentia 2018, pp. 307–330.Google Scholar
Lawson, R. A., ‘Hoe exclusief dient de ‘exclusionary rule’ te zijn?’, in Duyx, P. D. & van Zeben, P. D. J. (eds.), Via Straatsburg, Liber Amicorum Egbert Myjer, WLP 2004, pp. 181–206.Google Scholar
Lemley, M. A. & Volokh, E., ‘Law, Virtual Reality, and Augumented Reality’, University of Pennsylvania Law Review 2018, 166, pp. 1051–1138.Google Scholar
Leshinskaya, A. et al., ‘Neural Representations of Belief Concepts: A Representational Similarity Approach to Social Semantics’, Cerebral Cortex 2017, 27(1), pp. 344–357.Google Scholar
Lester, A., ‘Freedom of Expression’, in Macdonald, R. St. J. et al. (eds.), The European System for the Protection of Human Rights, Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhof Publishers 1993, pp. 465–491.Google Scholar
Levy, L. W., Origins of the Fifth Amendment, New York: Oxford University Press 1968.Google Scholar
Ligthart, S., ‘Gedwongen brain imaging in de strafrechtspleging en artikel 3 EVRM: van analogie naar deductie’, in Bosma, A. K. & Buisman, S. S. (eds.), Methoden van onderzoek in het strafrecht, de criminologie en de victimologie, Deventer: Wolters Kluwer 2018, pp. 51–66.Google Scholar
Ligthart, S., ‘Coercive Neuroimaging Technologies in Criminal Law in Europe: Exploring the Implications for the Prohibition of Ill-Treatment (Article 3 ECHR)’, in Reins, L. S. (ed.), Regulating New Technologies in Uncertain Times, The Hague: T.M.C. Asser – Springer 2019a, pp. 83–102.Google Scholar
Ligthart, S., ‘Coercive Neuroimaging, Criminal Law and Privacy: A European Perspective’, Journal of Law and the Biosciences 2019b, 6(1), pp. 289–309.Google Scholar
Ligthart, S., ‘Het recht tegen zelfincriminatie ex artikel 6 EVRM: Doorwerking van het nemo tenetur-beginsel in enkele gedachte-experimenten volgens de benadering van het EHRM en van de Hoge Raad’, Delikt en Delinkwent 2019c, 3(16), pp. 216–234.Google Scholar
Ligthart, S., ‘Coercive Forensic Neuroimaging and the Prohibition of Ill-Treatment (Article 3 ECHR)’, in Waltermann, A. et al. (eds.), Law, Science and Rationality, The Hague: Eleven 2020a.Google Scholar
Ligthart, S., ‘Freedom of Thought in Europe: Do Advances in ‘Brain-Reading’ Technology Call for Revision?’, Journal of Law and the Biosciences 2020b, 7(1), pp. 1-27.Google Scholar
Ligthart, S., ‘Autonomie en privacy als rechtsgronden van het zwijgrecht en het nemo tenetur-beginsel?’, Nederlands juristenblad 2021/2408.Google Scholar
Ligthart, S., Douglas, T., Bublitz, C. & Meynen, G., ‘The Future of Neuroethics and the Relevance of the Law’, AJOB Neuroscience 2019 10(3), pp. 120–121.Google Scholar
Ligthart, S., Douglas, T., Bublitz, C., Kooijmans, T. & Meynen, G., ‘Forensic Brain-Reading and Mental Privacy in European Human Rights Law: Foundations and Challenges’, Neuroethics 2020, doi.org/10.1007/s12152-020-09438-4, pp. 191–203Google Scholar
Ligthart, S., Meynen, G., Biller-Andorno, N., Kooijmans, T. & Kellmeyer, P., ‘Is Virtually Everything Possible? The Relevance of Ethics and Human Rights for Introducing Extended Reality in Forensic Psychiatry’, AJOB Neuroscience 2021a, doi.org/10.1080/21507740.2021.1898489.Google Scholar
Ligthart, S., Kooijmans, T., Douglas, T. & Meynen, G., ‘Closed-Loop Brain Devices in Offender Rehabilitation: Autonomy, Human Rights, and Accountability’, Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 2021b, 30(4), pp. 32–47.Google Scholar
Ligthart, S. & Meynen, G., ‘Zwijgen in de 21e eeuw: tijd voor herbezinning op het recht tegen zelfincriminatie?’, in Kooijmans, T. et al. (red.), Op zoek naar evenwicht (liber amicorum Marc Groenhuijsen), Deventer: Wolters Kluwer 2021.Google Scholar
Ligthart, S., Meynen, G. & Douglas, T., ‘Persuasive Technologies and the Right to Mental Liberty: The ‘Smart Rehabilitation’ of Criminal Offenders’, in Ienca, M. et al. (eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Life Science, Information Technology and Human Rights, New York: Cambridge University Press 2022.Google Scholar
Ligthart, S., Kooijmans, T. & Meynen, G., ‘“Brain-Reading” in Criminal Justice and Forensic Psychiatry: Towards an Integrative Legal-Ethical Approach’, in Ligthart, S., van Toor, D., Kooijmans, T., Douglas, T. & Meynen, G. (eds.), Neurolaw: Advances in Neuroscience, Justice, and Security, Cham: Palgrave Macmillan 2021a, pp. 121–142.Google Scholar
Ligthart, S., Kooijmans, T. & Meynen, G., ‘Neurorechten: wat doet Nederland ermee?’, Nederlands juristenblad 2021b/1578.Google Scholar
Liljegren, M. et al., ‘Criminal Behavior in Frontotemporal Dementia and Alzheimer Disease’, JAMA Neurology 2015, 72(3), pp. 295–300.Google Scholar
Linden, D., ‘Overcoming Self-Report: Possibilities and Limitations of Brain Imaging in Psychiatry’, in Richmond, S., Rees, G. & Edwards, S. J. L. (eds.), I Know What You’re Thinking: Brain Imaging and Mental Privacy, Croydon: Oxford University Press 2012, pp. 123–135.Google Scholar
Lisofsky, N. et al., ‘Investigating Socio-cognitive Processes in Deception: A Quantitative Meta-analysis of Neuroimaging Studies’, Neuropsychologia 2014, 61, pp. 113–122.Google Scholar
Loucaides, L. G., ‘The Right to Freedom of Thought as Protected by the European Convention on Human Rights’, Cyprus Human Rights Law Review 2012, 1(1), pp. 79–87.Google Scholar
Lukács, G. et al., ‘The First Independent Study on the Complex Trial Protocol Version of the P300-Based Concealed Information Test: Corroboration of Previous Findings and Highlights on Vulnerabilities’, International Journal of Psychophysiology 2016, 110, pp. 56–65.Google Scholar
Lykken, D. T., ‘The GSR in the Detection of Guilt’, Journal of Applied Psychology 1959, 43(6), pp. 385–388.Google Scholar
Lykken, D. T., A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abused of the Lie Detector, McGraw-Hill Book Company 1981.Google Scholar
Lyons, D., ‘Welcome Threats and Coercive Offers’, Philosophy 1975, 50(194), pp. 425–436.Google Scholar
MacCormick, N., Legal Right and Social Democracy: Essays in Legal and Political Philosophy, New York: Oxford University Press 1984.Google Scholar
Maity, A. et al., ‘Detection of Hypoxia in the Early Postoperative Period’, Anesthesia, Essays and Researches 2016, 6(1), pp. 34–37.Google Scholar
Marshall, J., Personal Freedom through Human Rights Law? Autonomy, Identity and Integrity under the European Convention on Human Rights, Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff 2009.Google Scholar
Mason, R. A. & Just, M. A., ‘Neural Representation of Physics Concepts’, Psychological Science 2016, 27(6)904–913.Google Scholar
Matsuda, I., Ogawa, T. & Tsuneoka, M., ‘Broadening the Use of the Concealed Information Test in the Field’, Frontiers in Psychiatry 2019, 10, doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00024, pp. 1–10.Google Scholar
Matthies, S. et al., ‘Small Amygdala – High Aggression? The Role of the Amygdala in Modulating Aggression in Healthy Subjects’, The World Journal of Biological Psychiatry 2012, 13(1), pp. 75–81.Google Scholar
Mavronicola, N., Torture, Inhumanity and Degradation under Article 3 of the ECHR: Absolute Rights and Absolute Wrongs, New York: Hart Publishing 2021.Google Scholar
McCarthy-Jones, S., ‘The Autonomous Mind: The Right to Freedom of Thought in the Twenty-First Century’, Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence 2019, 2(19), pp. 1–17.Google Scholar
McCarthy-Jones, S., ‘Freedom of Thought: Who, What, and Why?’, in Blitz, M. J. & Bublitz, J. C. (eds.), The Law and Ethics of Freedom of Thought, Volume 1, Cham: Palgrave Macmillan 2021, pp. 27–47.Google Scholar
McCrudden, C., ‘Human Dignity and Judicial Interpretation of Human Rights’, The European Journal of International Law 2008, 19(4), pp. 655–724.Google Scholar
McGregor, J., ‘Undue Influence as Coercive Offers in Clinical Trials’, in Reify, D. A. & Riker, W. J. (eds.), Coercion and the State, New York: Springer Science + Business Media B. V 2008, pp. 45–59.Google Scholar
McMillan, J., ‘The Kindest Cut? Surgical Castration, Sex Offenders and Coercive Offers’, Journal of Medical Ethics 2014, 40, pp. 583–590.Google Scholar
Mecacci, G. & Haselager, P., Identifying Criteria for the Evaluation of the Implications of Brain Reading for Mental Privacy, Science and Engineering Ethics 2019, 25, pp. 443–461.Google Scholar
Meegan, D. V., ‘Neuroimaging Techniques for Memory Detection: Scientific, Ethical, and Legal Issues’, American Journal of Bioethics 2008, 8(1), pp. 9–20.Google Scholar
Meijer, E. H. et al., ‘The P300 Is Sensitive to Concealed Face Recognition’, International Journal of Psychophysiology 2007, 66(3), pp. 231–237.Google Scholar
Meijer, E. et al., ‘A Comment on Farwell (2012): Brain Fingerprinting: A Comprehensive Tutorial Review of Detection of Concealed Information with Event-Related Brain Potentials’, Cognitive Neurodynamics 2013a, 7, pp. 155–158.Google Scholar
Meijer, E. H. et al., ‘Detecting Concealed Information from Groups Using a Dynamic Questioning Approach: Simultaneous Skin Conductance Measurement and Immediate Feedback’, Frontiers in Psychology 2013b, 4, Article 68.Google Scholar
Meijer, E. H. et al., ‘Memory Detection with the Concealed Information Test: A Meta-analysis of Skin Conductance, Respiration Heart Rate and P300 Data’, Psychophysiology 2014, 51, pp. 879–904.Google Scholar
Meijer, E. H. et al., ‘Deception Detection with Behavioral, Autonomic, and Neural Measures: Conceptual and Methodological Considerations that Warrant Modesty’, Psychophysiology 2016, 53, pp. 653–604.Google Scholar
Meijer, E. H. & van Koppen, J., ‘Lie Detectors and the Law: The Use of Polygraph in Europe’, in Canter, D. & Žukauskiene, R. (eds.), Psychology, Crime and Law: Psychology and Law: Bridging the Gap, Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing Limited 2008, pp. 31–50.Google Scholar
Meijer, E. H. & van Toor, D. A. G., ‘Reading the Sleeping Mind: Empirical and Legal Considerations’, in Ligthart, S. et al. (eds.), Neurolaw: Advances in Neuroscience, Justice, and Security, Cham: Palgrave Macmillan 2021, pp. 101–120.Google Scholar
Meijer, E. H. & Verschuere, B., ‘Deception Detection Based on Neuroimaging: Better Than the Polygraph?’, Journal of Forensic Radiology and Imaging 2017, 8, pp. 17–21.Google Scholar
Meijer, E. H. & Verschuere, B., ‘Detection Deception Using Psychophysiological and Neural Measures’, in Otgaar, H. & Howe, M. L. (eds.), Finding the Truth in the Courtroom: Dealing with Deception, Lies, and Memories, New York: Oxford University Press 2018, pp. 209–224.Google Scholar
Meixner, J. B., ‘Liar, Liar, Jury’s the Trier? The Future of Neuroscience-Based Credibility Assessment in the Court’, Northwestern University Law Review 2015, 106, pp. 1451–1488.Google Scholar
Meixner, J. B. & Rosenfeld, J. P., ‘Countermeasure Mechanisms in a P300-Based Concealed Information Test’, Psychophysiology 2010, 47(1), pp. 57–65.Google Scholar
Meixner, J. B. & Rosenfeld, J. P., ‘A Mock Terrorism Application of the P300-Based Concealed Information Test’, Psychophysiology 2011, 48(2), pp. 149–154.Google Scholar
Meixner, J. B. & Rosenfeld, J. P., ‘Detecting Knowledge of Incidentally Acquired, Real-World Memories Using a P300-Based Concealed-Information Test’, Psychological Science 2014, 25(11), pp. 1994–2005.Google Scholar
Meixner, J. B. Jr., ‘Admissibility and Constitutional Issues of the Concealed Information Test in American Courts: An Update’, in Rosenfeld, J. P. (ed.), Detecting Concealed Information and Deception: Recent Developments, London: Academic Press 2018, pp. 405–429.Google Scholar
Mendez, M. F., ‘The Unique Predisposition to Criminal Violations in Frontotemporal Dementia’, Journal of American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 2010, 38(3), pp. 318–323.Google Scholar
Mertens, R. & Allen, J. B., ‘The Role of Psychophysiology in Forensic Assessments: Deception Detection, ERPs, and Virtual Reality Mock Crime Scenarios’, Psychophysiology 2008, 45, pp. 286–298.Google Scholar
Meynen, G., ‘A Neurolaw Perspective on Psychiatric Assessments of Criminal Responsibility: Decision-Making, Mental Disorder, and the Brain’, International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 2013, 36(2), pp. 93–99.Google Scholar
Meynen, G., ‘Legal Insanity and Neurolaw in the Netherlands: Developments and Debates’, in Moratti, S. & Patterson, D. (eds.), Legal Insanity and the Brain: Science, Law and European Courts, Portland: Hart Publishing 2016a, pp. 137–168.Google Scholar
Meynen, G., Legal Insanity: Explorations in Psychiatry, Law and Ethics, Switzerland: Springer 2016b.Google Scholar
Meynen, G., ‘Brain-Based Mind Reading in Forensic Psychiatry: Exploring Possibilities and Perils’, Journal of Law and the Biosciences 2017, 4(2), pp. 311–329.Google Scholar
Meynen, G., ‘Forensic Psychiatry and Neurolaw: Description, Developments, and Debates’, International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 2018, doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2018.04.005.Google Scholar
Meynen, G., ‘Ethical Issues to Consider before Introducing Neurotechnological Thought Apprehension in Psychiatry’, AJOB Neuroscience 2019, 10(1), pp. 5–14.Google Scholar
Meynen, G., ‘Neuroscience-Based Psychiatric Assessments of Criminal Responsibility: Beyond Self-Report?’, Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 2020, 29, pp. 446–458.Google Scholar
Mhuircheartaigh, R. N. et al., ‘Cortical and Subcortical Connectivity Changes during Decreasing Levels of Consciousness in Humans: A Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Study using Propofol’, The Journal of Neuroscience 2010, 30(27), pp. 9095–9102.Google Scholar
Michael, F. et al., Consensus Report of the APA Work Group on Neuroimaging Markers of Psychiatric Disorders, American Psychiatric Association 2012.Google Scholar
Michalowski, S., ‘Critical Reflections on the Need for a Right to Mental Self-determination’, in von Arnauld, A., von der Decken, K. & Susi, M. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of New Human Rights: Recognition, Novelty, Rhetoric, Padstow: Cambridge University Press 2020, pp. 404–411.Google Scholar
Miller, G., ‘fMRI Lie Detection Fails a Legal Test’, Science 2010, 328, pp. 1336–1337.Google Scholar
Mirfield, P., Silence, Confessions and Improperly Obtained Evidence, New York: Oxford University Press 1997.Google Scholar
Mohnke, S. et al., ‘Brain Alterations in Peadophilia: A Critical Review’, Progress in Neurobiology 2014, 122, pp. 1–23.Google Scholar
Mohr, A. et al., ‘The Similarity of Brain Morphology in Healthy Monozygotic Twins’, Cognitive Brain Research 2002, 20(1), pp. 106–110.Google Scholar
Monina, G., ‘Article 15. Non-admissibility of Evidence Obtained by Torture’, in Nowak, M., Birk, M. & Monina, G. (eds.), The United Nations Convention against Torture and Its Optional Protocol (2nd Edition): A Commentary, New York: Oxford University Press 2019, pp. 417–440.Google Scholar
Moratti, S. & Patterson, D. (eds.), Legal Insanity and the Brain: Science, Law and European Courts, Portland: Hart Publishing 2016.Google Scholar
Morse, S., ‘New Neuroscience, Old Problems’, in Garland, B. (ed.), Neuroscience and the Law. Brain, Mind, and the Scales of Justice, New York: American Association for the Advancement of Science 2004, pp. 157–198.Google Scholar
Morse, S. J., ‘Diminished Capacity, Neuroscience, and Just Punishment’, in Richmond, S., Rees, G.& Edwards, S. J. L. (eds.), I Know What You’re Thinking: Brain Imaging and Mental Privacy, Croydon: Oxford University Press 2012, pp. 155–172.Google Scholar
Morse, S. J. & Roskies, A. L. (eds.), A Primer on Criminal Law and Neuroscience, New York: Oxford University Press 2013.Google Scholar
Muller, W., ‘Bewijs verkregen als gevolg van bedreiging met foltering: is een ‘giftige vrucht’ wel altijd een verboden vrucht?’, NJCM-Bulletin 2009, nr. 1, pp. 22–41.Google Scholar
Muñoz, J. M., ‘Chile – Right to Free Will Needs Definition’, Nature 2019, 574, p. 634.Google Scholar
Murdoch, J., Protecting the Right to Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion under the European Convention on Human Rights. Strasbourg: Council of Europe 2012.Google Scholar
Murphy, E. R. D. & Rissman, J., ‘Evidence of Memory from Brain Data’, Journal of Law and the Biosciences 2020; lsaa078, doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsaa078.Google Scholar
Myjer, E., ‘Onrechtmatig maar niet unfair: De gebugde drugshandelaar’, NJCM-Bulletin 2000, 25(7/8), pp. 1255–1261.Google Scholar
Myjer, E., Van Duimschroef naar bloedproef, Preadvies NVVR, Deventer: Kluwer 1978.Google Scholar
Nadal, M. V., ‘Artificial Intelligence and ‘Pseudonymity’: The Government Presents the First Version of the Digital Rights Charter’, NeuroRights Initiative 17 November 2020 (www.nri.ntc.columbia.edu, visited on 15 May 2021).Google Scholar
Nadelhoffer, T. et al., ‘Neuroprediction, Violence, and the Law: Setting the Stage’ Neuroethics 2012, 5(1), pp. 67–99.Google Scholar
Nadelhoffer, T. & Sinnott-Armstrong, W., ‘Neurolaw and Neuroprediction: Potential Promises and Perils’, Philosophy Compass 2012, 7(9), pp. 631–642.Google Scholar
Nahari, G. & Ben-Shakhar, G., ‘Psychophysiological and Behavioral Measures for Detecting Concealed Information: The Role of Memory for Crime Details’, Psychophysiology 2011, 48(6), pp. 733–744.Google Scholar
Nelson, R. M. et al., ‘The Concept of Voluntary Consent’, The American Journal of Bioethics 2011, 11(8), pp. 6–16.Google Scholar
Nishimoto, S. et al., ‘Reconstructing Visual Experiences from Brain Activity Evoked by Natural Movies’, Current Biology 2011, 21(19).Google Scholar
Noggle, R., ‘The Ethics of Manipulation’, in Zalta, E. N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2020 Edition).Google Scholar
Nouwt, J., ‘Reasonable Expectations of Geo-privacy?’, SCRIPTed – A Journal of Law, Technology & Society, 5(2), 375–403.Google Scholar
Noyon, L. et al., ‘Integrating Neuroscience in Criminal Law: The Dutch Situation as an Example’, International Journal of Forensic Mental Health 2019, 18(3), pp. 281–291.Google Scholar
Nozick, R., ‘Coercion’, in Morgenbesser, S., Suppes, P. & White, M. (eds.), Philosophy, Science, and Method Essays in Honor of Ernest Nagel, St. Martin’s Press 1969, pp. 440–474.Google Scholar
Nugent, K. M., ‘Practical Legal Concerns’, in Simpson, J. R. (ed.), Neuroimaging in Forensic Psychiatry. From Clinic to the Courtroom, Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell 2012a, pp. 255–273.Google Scholar
Nugent, K. M., ‘Neuroimaging and the Constitution’, in Simpson, J. R. (ed.), Neuroimaging in Forensic Psychiatry. From Clinic to the Courtroom, Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell 2012b, pp. 275–302.Google Scholar
’Brien, D. M. O, ‘Fifth Amendment: Fox Hunters, Old Women, Hermits, and the Burger Court’, Norte Dam Law Review 1978, 54(1), pp. 26–72.Google Scholar
’Callaghan, P. O & Shiner, B., ‘The Right to Freedom of Thought in the European Convention of Human Rights’, European Journal of Comparative Law and Governance 2021, 8(2–3), pp. 112–145.Google Scholar
’Driscoll, K. O & Leach, J. P., ‘“No Longer Gage”: An Iron Bar through the Head Early Observations of Personality Change after Injury to the Prefrontal Cortex’, BMJ 1998, 317, pp. 1673–1647.Google Scholar
Ölçer, F. P., ‘Illegally Obtained Evidence in European Treaty of Human Rights Law (ETHR)’, Annales de la Faculté de Droit d’Istanbul 2008 40(57), pp. 65–153.Google Scholar
Ölçer, F. P., ‘The European Court of Human Rights: The Fair Trial Analysis under Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights’, in Thaman, S. C. (ed.), Exclusionary Rules in Comparative Law, Dordrecht: Springer Science + Business Media 2013, pp. 371–399.Google Scholar
Ormerod, D., ‘ECHR and the Exclusion of Evidence: Trial Remedies for Article 8 Breaches?’, Criminal Law Review 2003, Feb., pp. 61–80.Google Scholar
Oshana, M., ‘How Much Should We Value Autonomy?’, Social Philosophy & Policy Foundation 2003, 20(2), pp. 99–126.Google Scholar
Osugi, A., ‘Daily Application of the CIT in Japan’, in Verschuere, B., Ben-Shakhar, G. & Meijer, E. (eds.), Memory Detection: Theory and Application of the Concealed Information Test, New York: Cambridge University Press 2011.Google Scholar
Paasonen, J. et al., ‘Functional Connectivity under Six Anesthesia Protocols and the Awake Condition in Rat Brain’, NeuroImage 2018, 172, pp. 9–20.Google Scholar
Pardini, D. A. et al., ‘Lower Amygdala Volume in Men Is Associated with Childhood Aggression, Early Psychopathic Traits, and Future Violence’, BIOL Psychiatry 2014, 75(1), pp. 73–80.Google Scholar
Pardo, M. S., Neuroscience Evidence, Legal Culture, and Criminal Procedure, American Journal of Criminal Law 2006, 33(3), pp. 301–337.Google Scholar
Pardo, S. & Patterson, D., Minds, Brains, and Law. The Conceptual Foundations of Law and Neuroscience, New York: Oxford University Press 2015.Google Scholar
Partsch, K. J., ‘Freedom of Conscience and Expression, and Political Freedoms’, in Henkin, L. (ed.), The International Bill of Rights: The Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, New York: Columbia University Press 1981, pp. 209–245.Google Scholar
Pattenden, R., ‘Admissibility in Criminal Proceedings of Third Party and Real Evidence Obtained by Methods Prohibited by UNCAT’, The International Journal of Evidence & Proof 2006, 10, pp. 1–41.Google Scholar
Peçi, I., Sounds of Silence (diss. Groningen), Nijmegen: WLP 2006.Google Scholar
Peth, J., Vossel, G. & Gamer, M., ‘Emotional Arousal Modulates the Encoding of Crime-Related Details and Corresponding Physiological Responses in the Concealed Information Test’, Psychophysiology 2012, 49(3), pp. 3980–390.Google Scholar
Picton, T. W., ‘The 300 Wave of Human Event-Related Potential’, Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology 1992, 9(4), pp. 456–479.Google Scholar
Pillai, J. & Sperling, M. R., ‘Interictal EEG and the Diagnosis of Epilepsy’, Epilepsia 2006, 47(1), pp. 14–22.Google Scholar
Pirker, B., Proportionality, Analysis and Models of Judicial Review, Groningen: Europa Law Publishing 2013.Google Scholar
Pitcher, K. M., Judicial Responses to Pre-trial Procedural Violations in International Criminal Proceedings, The Hague: T.M.C. Asser Press 2018a.Google Scholar
Pitcher, K. M., ‘Rights-Analysis in Addressing Pre-trial Impropriety: An Obstacle to Fairness?’, in Jackson, J. D. & Summers, S. J. (eds.), Obstacles to Fairness in Criminal Proceedings: Individual Rights and Institutional Forms, Oxford: Hart Publishing 2018b, pp. 273–300.Google Scholar
Pitcher, K. M. & Samadi, M., ‘Integriteit als perspectief bij de rechterlijke reactie op vormverzuimen’, DD 2018/59, pp. 731–746.Google Scholar
Poldrack, R. A. et al., ‘Predicting Violent Behavior: What Can Neuroscience Add?’, Trends in Cognitive Science 2018, 22(2), 111–123.Google Scholar
Pivaty, A. et al., ‘Opening Pandora’s Box: The Right to Silence in Police Interrogations and the Directive 2016/343/EU’, New Journal of European Criminal Law 2021a, 12(3), pp. 328–346.Google Scholar
Pivaty, A. et al., ‘Strengthening the Protection of the Right to Remain Silent at the Investigative Stage: What Role for the EU Legislator?’, New Journal of European Criminal Law 2021b, 12(3), pp. 427–448.Google Scholar
Pivaty, A., ter, P. Vrugt, & de Vocht, D., Policy Report Netherlands, EmPriSe Project 2021.Google Scholar
Pugh, J., ‘Coercion and the Neurocorrective Offer’, in Birks, D. & Douglas, T. (eds.), Treatment for Crime: Philosophical Essays on Neurointerventions in Criminal Justice, New York: Oxford University Press 2018, pp. 94–116.Google Scholar
Pugh, J., Autonomy, Rationality, and Contemporary Bioethics, New York: Oxford University Press 2020.Google Scholar
Purshouse, J., ‘The Reasonable Expectation of Privacy and the Criminal Suspect’, Modern Law Review 2016, 79(5), pp. 871–884.Google Scholar
Pustilnik, A. C., ‘Neurotechnologies at the Intersection of Criminal Procedure and Constitutional Law’, University of Maryland Legal Studies Research Paper 2012, 61, pp. 1–20.Google Scholar
Raichle, M. E., ‘An Introduction to Functional Imaging in the Context of Lie Detection’, in Bizzi, E. et al. (eds.), Using Imaging to Identify Deceit. Scientific and Ethical Questions, Cambridge: American Academic of Arts and Sciences 2009.Google Scholar
Raichle, M. E., ‘What Is fMRI?’, in Gazzaniga, M. S. & Rakoff, J. S. (eds.), A Judge’s Guide to Neuroscience: A Concise Introduction, California: University of California 2010.Google Scholar
Raine, A., The Anatomy of Violence: The Biological Roots of Crime, New York: Pantheon Books 2013.Google Scholar
Rainey, S. et al., ‘Is the European Data Protection Regulation Sufficient to Deal with Emerging Data Concerns Relating to Neurotechnology?’, Journal of Law and the Biosciences 2020, 7(1), pp. 1–19.Google Scholar
Rainey, B., McCormick, P. & Ovey, C., The European Convention on Human Rights, New York: Oxford University Press 2021.Google Scholar
Redmayne, M., ‘Rethinking the Privilege against Self-incrimination’, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 2007, 27(2), pp. 209–232.Google Scholar
Reify, D. A. & Riker, W. J. (eds.), Coercion and the State, New York: Springer Science + Business Media B.V 2008.Google Scholar
Renucci, J.-F., Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights: Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion, Strasbourg: Council of Europe 2005.Google Scholar
Richardson, G., ‘Coercion and Human Rights: A European Perspective’, Journal of Mental Health 2008, 17(3), pp. 245–254.Google Scholar
Richmond, S., ‘Introduction’, in Richmond, S., Rees, G. & Edwards, S. J. L. (eds.), I Know What You’re Thinking: Brain Imaging and Mental Privacy, Croydon: Oxford University Press 2012, pp. 1–10.Google Scholar
Rickli, J. M. & Ienca, M., ‘The Security and Military Implications of Neurotechnology and Artificial Intelligence’, in Friedrich, O. et al. (eds.), Clinical Neurotechnology Meets Artificial Intelligence. Advances in Neuroethics, Cham: Springer 2021, pp. 197–214.Google Scholar
van Rijn, A., ‘Freedom of Expression’, in van Dijk, P. et al. (eds.), Theory and Practice of the European Convention on Human Rights, Cambridge: Intersentia 2018, pp. 765–811.Google Scholar
Risacher, S. L. & Saykin, A. J., ‘Neuroimaging in Aging and Neurologic Diseases’, in Dekosky, S. T. & Asthana, S. (eds.), Handbook of Clinical Neurology, Vol. 167, Geriatric Neurology, Amsterdam: Elsevier B. V. 2019, pp. 191–227.Google Scholar
Roberts, C. K., Reconceptualising the Place of the Forum Internum and Forum Externum in Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (diss. University of Bristol), Bristol 2020 (electronic version).Google Scholar
Roberts, P., ‘Excluding Evidence as Protecting Constitutional or Human Rights?’, in Zedner, L. & Roberts, J. V. (eds.), Principles and Values in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice: Essays in honour of Andrew Ashworth, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2012, pp. 171–190.Google Scholar
Roberts, P. & Zuckerman, A., Criminal Evidence, New York: Oxford University Press 2010.Google Scholar
Rodrigues-Amorim, D. et al., ‘Schizophrenia: A Review of Potential Biomarkers’, Journal of Psychiatric Research 2017, 3, pp. 37–49.Google Scholar
Rosenfeld, J. P., ‘Brain Fingerprinting’: A Critical Analysis’, The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice 2005, 4(1), pp. 20–37.Google Scholar
Rosenfeld, J. P., ‘P300 in Detecting Concealed Information’, in Verschuere, B., Ben-Shakhar, G. & Meijer, E. (eds.), Memory Detection: Theory and Application of the Concealed Information Test, New York: Cambridge University Press 2011, pp. 63–89.Google Scholar
Rosenfeld, J. P. (ed.), Detecting Concealed Information and Deception: Recent Developments, London: Academic Press 2018.Google Scholar
Rosenfeld, J. P., ‘P300 in Detecting Concealed Information and Deception: A Review’, Psychophysiology 2020, 57(7).Google Scholar
Rosenfeld, J. P. et al., ‘Simple, Effective Countermeasures to P300-Based Tests of Detection of Concealed Information’, Psychophysiology 2004, 41(2), pp. 205–219.Google Scholar
Rosenfeld, J. P. et al., ‘The Complex Trial Protocol (CTP): A New, Countermeasure-Resistant, Accurate, P300-Based Method for Detection of Concealed Information’, Psychophysiology 2008, 45(6), pp. 906–919.Google Scholar
Rosenfeld, J. P. et al., ‘Review of Recent Studies and Issues Regarding the P300-Based Complex Trial Protocol for Detection of Concealed Information’, International Journal of Psychophysiology 2013, 90, pp. 118–135.Google Scholar
Rosenfeld, J. P. et al., ‘Evidence Suggesting Superiority of Visual (Verbal) vs. Auditory Test Presentation Modality in the P300-Based, Complex Trial Protocol for Concealed Autobiographical Memory Detection’, International Journal of Psychophysiology 2015a, 96(1), pp. 16–22.Google Scholar
Rosenfeld, J. P. et al., ‘Superiority of Pictorial versus Verbal Presentation and Initial Exposure in the P300-Based, Complex Trial Protocol for Concealed Memory Detection’, Applied Psychophysiology Biofeedback 2015b, 40(2), pp. 61–73.Google Scholar
Rosell, D. R. & Siever, L. J., ‘The Neurobiology of Aggression and Violence’, CNS Spectrums 2015, 20, pp. 254–279.Google Scholar
Roskies, A. L., ‘Brain Imaging Techniques’, in Morse, S. J. & Roskies, A. L. (red.), A Primer on Criminal Law and Neuroscience, New Yok: Oxford University Press 2013a, pp. 37–74.Google Scholar
Roskies, A. L., ‘Other Neuroscientific Techniques’, in Morse, S. J. & Roskies, A. L. (red.), A Primer on Criminal Law and Neuroscience, New Yok: Oxford University Press 2013b, pp. 75–88.Google Scholar
Roskies, A. L., ‘Mind Reading, Lie Detection, and Privacy’, in Clausen, J. & Levy, N. (eds.), Handbook of Neuroethics, Dordrecht: Springer 2015, pp. 679–695.Google Scholar
Ruiz-Blondet, M., Jin, Z. & Laszlo, S., ‘CEREBRE: A Novel Method for Very High Accuracy Event-Related Potential Biometric Identification’, IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security 2016, 11(7), pp. 1618–1629.Google Scholar
Rushing, S. E., Pryma, D. A. & Langleben, D. D., ‘PET and SPECT’, in Simpson, J. R. (red.), Neuroimaging in Forensic Psychiatry. From Clinic to the Courtroom, Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell 2012, pp. 3–26.Google Scholar
Rusconi, E. & Mitchener-Nissen, T., ‘Prospects of Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging as Lie Detector’, Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 2013, 7, pp. 1–12.Google Scholar
Russo, M. et al., ‘Evaluation of Accuracy and Reproducibility of a Relocatable Maxillary Fixation System for Fractionated Intracranial Stereotactic Radiation Therapy’, Journal of Medical Ration Sciences 2016, 63, pp. 41–47.Google Scholar
Ryberg, J., ‘Punishment, Pharmacological Treatment, and Early Release’, International Journal of Applied Philosophy 2012, 26(2), pp. 231–244.Google Scholar
Ryberg, J., ‘Neuroethics and Brain Privacy: Setting the Stage’, Res Publica 2017a, 23, pp. 153–158.Google Scholar
Ryberg, J., ‘Neuroscience, Mind Reading and Mental Privacy’, Res Publica 2017b, 23, pp. 197–221.Google Scholar
Ryberg, J., Neurointerventions, Crime, and Punishment, New York: Oxford University Press 2020.Google Scholar
Sententia, W., ‘Neuroethical Considerations: Cognitive Liberty and Converging Technologies for Improving Human Cognition’, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 2004, 1013, pp. 221–228.Google Scholar
Stoller, S. E. & Wolpe, P. R., ‘Emerging Neurotechnologies for Lie Detection and the Fifth Amendment’, American Journal of Law and Medicine 2007, 33(2), pp. 359–375.Google Scholar
Sbrizzi, A. et al., ‘Fast Quantitative MRI as a Nonlinear Tomography Problem’, Magnetic Resonance Imaging 2018, 46, pp. 56–63.Google Scholar
Schabas, W. A. (ed.), The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: The Travaux Préparatoires, New York: Cambridge University Press 2013.Google Scholar
Shaw, E., ‘Offering Castration to Sex Offenders: The Significance of the State’s Intentions’, Journal of Medical Ethics 2014, 40, pp. 594–595.Google Scholar
Shen, F. X., ‘Neuroscience, Mental Privacy and the Law’, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 2013, 36, pp. 653–713.Google Scholar
Shen, F. X., ‘Law and Neuroscience 2.0’, Arizona State Law Journal 2016, 48, pp. 1043–1086.Google Scholar
Simpson, J. R. (ed.), Neuroimaging in Forensic Psychiatry. From Clinic to the Courtroom, Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell 2012.Google Scholar
van der Sloot, B., ‘How to Assess Privacy Violations in the Age of Big Data? Analysing the Three Different Tests Developed by the ECtHR and Adding for a Fourth One’, Information & Communication Technology Law 2015, 24(1), pp. 74–103.Google Scholar
Smith-Bindman, R. et al., ‘Radiation Dose Associated with Common Computed Tomography Examinations and the Associated Lifetime Attributable Risk of Cancer’, Archives of Internal Medicine 2009, 169(22), pp. 2079–2086.Google Scholar
Sommaggio, P. et al., ‘Cognitive Liberty. A First Step Towards a Human Neuro-rights Declaration’, BioLaw Journal 2017, 3, pp. 27–45.Google Scholar
Sommaggio, P. & Mazzocca, M., ‘Cognitive Liberty and Human Rights’, in D’Aloia, A. & Errigo, M. C. (eds.), Neuroscience and Law: Complicated Crossings and New Perspectives, Switzerland: Springer Nature 2020, pp. 95–111.Google Scholar
Sottiaux, S. & van der Shyff, G., ‘Methods of International Human Rights Adjudication: Towards a More Structured Decision-Making Process for the European Court of Human Rights’, Hastings International and Comparative Law Review 2008, 31(1), pp. 115–156.Google Scholar
Spence, S. A. et al., ‘Behavioural and Functional Anatomical Correlates of Deception in Humans’, Neuroreport 2001, 12(13), pp. 2849–2853.Google Scholar
Spence, S. A. et al., ‘Muchausen’s Syndrome by Proxy’ or a ‘Miscarriage of Justice’? An Initial Application of Functional Neuroimaging to the Question of Guilt Versus Innocence’, European Psychiatry 2008, 23(4), pp. 309–314.Google Scholar
Sutton, S. et al., ‘Evoked-Potential Correlates of Stimulus Uncertainty’, Science 1965, 150(3700), pp. 1187–1188.Google Scholar
Staffaroni, A. M., ‘Neuroimaging in Dementia’, Seminars in Neurology 2017, 37(5), pp. 510–537.Google Scholar
Stevens, L., Het nemo-teneturbeginsel in strafzaken: van zwijgrecht naar containerbegrip (diss. Tilburg), Nijmegen: WLP 2005.Google Scholar
Stevens, L., ‘Het nemo-teneturbeginsel als containerbegrip? Een beschouwing van de koers van het EHRM naar aanleiding van het Jalloh-arrest’, Delikt & Delinkwent 2007/54, pp. 682–697.Google Scholar
Stevens, L., ‘Gedwongen biometrische toegangsverschaffing is niet in strijd met nemo tenetur’, Nederlands juristenblad 2019/315, pp. 400–403.Google Scholar
Susi, M., ‘Novelty in New Human Rights. The Decrease in Universality and Abstractness Thesis’, in von Arnauld, A., von der Decken, K. & Susi, M. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of New Human Rights: Recognition, Novelty, Rhetoric, Padstow: Cambridge University Press 2020, pp. 21–33.Google Scholar
Sweeney, A. et al., ‘Multimodality Cranial Image Fusion Using External Markers Applied via a Vacuum Mouthpiece and a Case Report’, Strahlentherapie und Onkologie 2003, 179(4), pp. 254–260.Google Scholar
Szmukler, G. & Appelbaum, P. S., ‘Treatment Pressures, Leverage, Coercion, and Compulsion in Mental Health Care’, Journal of Mental Health 2008, 17(3), pp. 233–244.Google Scholar
Taylor, P. M., Freedom of Religion: UN and European Human Rights Law and Practice, New York: Cambridge University Press 2005.Google Scholar
Thommen, M. & Samadi, M., ‘The Bigger the Crime, the Smaller the Chance of a Fair Trial? Evidence Exclusion in Serious Crime Cases under Swiss, Dutch and European Human Rights Law’, European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice 2016, 24, pp. 65–85.Google Scholar
Thompson, S. K., ‘The Legality of the Use of Psychiatric Neuroimaging in Intelligence Interrogation’, Cornell Law Review 2005, 90, pp. 1601–1638.Google Scholar
Thompson, S. K., ‘A Brave New World of Interrogation Jurisprudence’, American Journal of Law & Medicine 2007, 33, pp. 341–357.Google Scholar
Timonen, M. et al., ‘The Association of Preceding Traumatic Brain Injury with Mental Disorders, Alcoholism and Criminality: The Northern Finland 1966 Birth Cohort Study, Psychiatry Research 2002, 113(3), pp. 217–226.Google Scholar
van Toor, D. A. G., ‘Het nemo-teneturbeginsel: Rechtspraak van het Europese Hof voor de Rechten van de Mens en de Hoge Raad vergeleken’, Tijdschrift voor Bijzonder Strafrecht & Handhaving 2016, (1), pp. 28–43.Google Scholar
van Toor, D. A. G., Het schuldige geheugen? Een onderzoek naar het gebruik van hersenonderzoek als opsporingsmethode in het licht van eisen van instrumentaliteit en rechtsbescherming (diss. Nijmegen), Deventer: Wolters Kluwer 2017.Google Scholar
van Toor, D. A. G., ‘Het nemo-teneturbeginsel bij digitale opsporingsbevoegdheden: oproep tot discussie over fundamentele bezinning van de normering van het opsporingsonderzoek in een digitale context’, Tijdschrift voor Bijzonder Strafrecht & Handhaving 2021, nr. 2, pp. 89–100.Google Scholar
Tortora, L. et al., ‘Neuroprediction and A. I. in Forensic Psychiatry and Criminal Justice: A Neurolaw Perspective’, Frontiers in Psychology 2020, 11(222), pp. 1–9.Google Scholar
Trechsel, S., Human Rights in Criminal Proceedings, New York: Oxford University Press 2005.Google Scholar
Treglia, G. et al., ‘Diagnostic Performance and Prognostic Value of PET/CT with Different Tracers for Brain Tumors: A Systematic Review of Published Meta-Analyses’, International Journal of Molecular Sciences 20(19), 2019.Google Scholar
Turner, J. I. & Weigend, T., ‘The Purposes and Functions of Exclusionary Rules: A Comparative Overview’, in Gless, S. & Richter, T. (eds.), Do Exclusionary Rules Ensure a Fair Trial? A Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, Cham: Springer 2019, pp. 255–282.Google Scholar
UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief, Report on the Freedom of Thought, 5 Ocotber 2021, A/76/380.Google Scholar
Vermeulen, B. & Battjes, H., ‘Prohibition of Torture and Other Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment’, in van Dijk, P. et al. (eds.), Theory and Practice of the European Convention on Human Rights, Cambridge: Intersentia 2018, pp. 381–424.Google Scholar
Vermeulen, B. & Roosmalen, M., ‘Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion’, in van Dijk, P. et al. (eds.), Theory and Practice of the European Convention on Human Rights, Cambridge: Intersentia 2018, pp. 735–764.Google Scholar
Verschuere, B., Ben-Shakhar, G. & Meijer, E. (eds.), Memory Detection: Theory and Application of the Concealed Information Test, New York: Cambridge University Press 2011.Google Scholar
Verschuere, B. & Meijer, E., ‘What’s on Your Mind? Recent Advances in Memory Detection Using the Concealed Information Test’, European Psychologist 2014, 19(3), pp. 162–171.Google Scholar
Vincent, N. A., ‘Neuroimaging and Responsibility Assessments’, Neuroethics 2011, 4, pp. 35–49.Google Scholar
Vincent, N. A., Nadelhoffer, T. & McCay, A. (eds.), Neurointerventions and the Law: Regulating Human Mental Capacity, New York: Oxford University Press 2020.Google Scholar
Vorhaus, J., ‘On Degration – Part One: Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights’, Common Law World Reviews 2002, 31, pp. 374–399.Google Scholar
de Vries, K., ‘Right to Respect for Private and Family Life’, in van Dijk, P. et al. (eds.), Theory and Practice of the European Convention on Human Rights, Cambridge: Intersentia 2018, pp. 667–734.Google Scholar
Wagner, A. et al., fMRI and Lie Detection: A Knowledge Brief of the MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Law and Neuroscience, The MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Law and Neuroscience 2016.Google Scholar
Waldron, J., ‘Torture and Positive Law: Jurisprudence for the White House’, Columbia Law Review 2005, 105(6), pp. 1681–1750.Google Scholar
Walker, N., ‘Ethical and Other Problems’, in Walker, N. (ed.), Dangerous people, London: Blackstone 1996, pp. 1–12.Google Scholar
Wall, B. F. et al., Protection of Pregnant Patients during Diagnostic Medical Exposures to Ionizing Radiation. Advice from the Health Protection Agency. The Royal College of Radiologists and the College of Radiographers, London: Health Protection Agency 2009.Google Scholar
Waller, L. et al., ‘Evaluating the Replicability, Specificity, and Generalizability of Connectome Fingerprints’, NeuroImage 2017, 158, pp. 371–377.Google Scholar
Wang, J. et al., ‘Identifying Thematic Roles from Neural Representations Measured by Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging’, Cognitive Neuropsychology 2016, 33(3–4), pp. 257–264.Google Scholar
Wang, J., Cherkassky, V. L. & Just, M. A., ‘Predicting the Brain Activation Pattern Associated with the Propositional Content of a Sentence: Modeling Neural Representations of Events and States’, Human Brain Mapping 2017, 38(10), pp. 4865–4881.Google Scholar
Wertheimer, A., Coercion, Princeton: Princeton University Press 1987.Google Scholar
Wertheimer, A. & Miller, F. G., ‘There Are (STILL) No Coercive Offers’, Journal of Medical Ethics 2014, 40(9), pp. 592–593.Google Scholar
Williamson, B., ‘Brain Data: Scanning, Scraping and Sculpting the Plastic Learning Brain through Neurotechnology’, Postdigital Science and Education 2019, 1, pp. 65–86.Google Scholar
Witzel, J., ‘Implications of Neuroimaging for Dangerousness Assessment’, in Simpson, J. R. (ed.), Neuroimaging in Forensic Psychiatry. From Clinic to the Courtroom, Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell 2012, pp. 195–200.Google Scholar
Woodward, N. D. & Cascio, C. J., ‘Resting-State Functional Connectivity in Psychiatric Disorders’, JAMA Psychiatry 2017, 72(8), pp. 743–744.Google Scholar
Yang, Y. et al., ‘Localization of Deformations within the Amygdala in Individuals with Psychopathy’, Archive of General Psychiatry 2009, 66(9), pp. 986–994.Google Scholar
Yuste, R. et al., ‘Four Ethical Priorities for Neurotechnologies and AI’, Nature 2017, 551.Google Scholar
Yuste, R., Genser, J. & Herrmann, S., ‘It’s Time for Neuro-rights’, Horizons 2021(18), pp. 154–164.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, D., ‘Coercive Wage Offers’, Philosophy & Public Affairs 1981, 10(2), pp. 121–145.Google Scholar
Zijlmans, J. et al., ‘The Predictive Value of Neurobiological Measures for Recidivism in Delinquent Male Young Adults’, Journal of Psychiatry & Neuroscience 2021, 46(2), pp. 271–280.Google Scholar
Zukotynsk, K. et al., ‘PET/CT of Dementia’, American Journal of Roentgenology 2018, 211(2), pp. 246–259.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • Bibliography
  • Sjors Ligthart, Tilburg University, The Netherlands
  • Book: Coercive Brain-Reading in Criminal Justice
  • Online publication: 25 August 2022
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009252447.011
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • Bibliography
  • Sjors Ligthart, Tilburg University, The Netherlands
  • Book: Coercive Brain-Reading in Criminal Justice
  • Online publication: 25 August 2022
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009252447.011
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • Bibliography
  • Sjors Ligthart, Tilburg University, The Netherlands
  • Book: Coercive Brain-Reading in Criminal Justice
  • Online publication: 25 August 2022
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009252447.011
Available formats
×