Who's flying the plane: serotonin levels, aggression and free will

The present paper addresses the philosophical problem raised by current causal neurochemical models of impulsive violence and aggression: to what extent can we hold violent criminal offenders responsible for their conduct if that conduct is the result of deterministic biochemical processes in the brain. This question is currently receiving a great deal of attention among neuroscientists, legal scholars and philosophers. We examine our current knowledge of neuroscience to assess the possible roles of deterministic factors which induce impulsive aggression, and the extent to which this behavior can be controlled by neural conditioning mechanisms. Neural conditioning mechanisms, we suggest, may underlie what we consider the basis of responsible (though not necessarily moral) behavior: the capacity to give and take reasons. The models we first examine are based in part upon the role played by the neurotransmitter, serotonin, in the regulation of violence and aggression. Collectively, these results would appear to argue in favor of the view that low brain serotonin levels induce impulsive aggression which overrides mechanisms related to rational decision making processes. We next present an account of responsibility as based on the capacity to exercise a certain kind of reason-responsive control over one's conduct. The problem with such accounts of responsibility, however, is that they fail to specify a neurobiological realization of such mechanisms of control. We present a neurobiological, and weakly determinist, framework for understanding how persons can exercise guidance control over their conduct. This framework is based upon classical conditioning of neurons in the prefrontal cortex that allow for a decision making mechanism that provides for prefrontal cortical control of the sites in the brain which express aggressive behavior that include the hypothalamus and midbrain periaqueductal gray. The authors support the view that, in many circumstances, neural conditioning mechanisms provide the basis for the control of human aggression in spite of the presence of brain serotonin levels that might otherwise favor the expression of impulsive aggressive behavior. Indeed if those neural conditioning mechanisms underlie the human capacity to exercise control, they may be the neural realization of reason-responsiveness generally.     

Planning for the succession of digital assets

Estate planners’ current strategies for the disposition of digital assets are quickly becoming out-dated. This is largely the result of ambiguities concerning proprietary rights of digital assets after death. When advising clients on how to plan for the succession of digital assets, it is important for estate planners to understand the nature of digital assets today and to recognize how these assets may evolve. In failing to take into account the evolving nature of digital assets, estate planners are liable to craft short-sighted and thus ineffective succession plans. As the popularity of digital executor businesses increases, estate planners ought to caution clients on their shortcomings. Additionally, legislatures must create statutes which outline the rights of individuals vis-à-vis online service providers.     

网络言论的失范及其法律规制

网络言论作为公民言论的一种形式,其自由同样必须建立在合法的基础上,侵犯国家、社会或公民、法人、其他组织合法权益的言论,必须受到法律的追究。然而,网络言论是以何种方式侵权、又该如何通过法律加以规制,这都是值得探索的新问题。     

法国宪法基本权利的概念与借鉴

作为法国宪法的基本范畴之一,基本权利概念的出现以宪法委员会之基本权利保障职能的活性化为基础,借鉴了外国法的表述,通过宪法裁判获得承认,并于2008年修宪确认于宪法典正文中。基本权利概念出现的原因在于,传统的公共自由只能防御行政权的侵害,而不具有对抗法律的效果,因此,需要反思传统的法律至上主义人权观、实现基本权利及其宪法规范的至上性。相应地,基本权利的论证路径也经历了从主观主义到客观主义的演变。外国法与比较法在我国基本权利研究中应用不足,法国的基本权利概念对我国学术界辨析基本权利与宪法权利的名称、基本权利的论证路径均有借鉴意义。     

罪责的客观化与期待可能性理论的命运

当代刑法对风险控制与危害预防的强调,使得罪责概念的内容经历了重大的变化。随着对行为人的控制能力的强调,以选择自由为基础的传统规范责任论被废弃。期待可能性被从责任论中剥离出来,其重要性也日益呈下降的趋势。期待可能性理论在当代所遭遇的命运,折射出刑法任务观的重新定位对刑法体系中具体制度与理论的重大影响。     

在合同自由与社会公益之间——特许权配置解析

纵向限制一直是反垄断法规制的难点,这是因为此类行为多有促进品牌间竞争和抑制品牌内竞争的双重效应,如何取舍殊为不易。美国反托拉斯法对地域限制等纵向限制行为的百年规制历史表明:借助普通法合同自由与社会公益的二元分析框架来界定特许权限范围存在知识上的缺陷,只有同时引入经济分析等其他分析工具才可能对特许权的恰当配置作出更为理性的判断,过于膨胀的权利话语无益于复杂经济问题的解决。     

再论法律行为的概念体系

在研究法律行为的意志性的同时,不可避免对于法律行为概念进行必要的分析,因为特性总是从概念中引申而来。     

遗嘱解释的三个问题

遗嘱解释以探求遗嘱人内心的主观意思为目的 ,遗嘱生效的形式要求与遗嘱解释活动相区分 ,从而一方面满足了遗嘱是要式法律行为的要求 ,另一方面也达到了遗嘱解释的目的。遗嘱解释的方法包括文义解释、整体解释、目的解释、历史解释、习惯解释、诚信解释等。补充遗嘱漏洞的常见方法是类推补充与法律推定补充。     

论马克思早期的自由观

自由是人类固有的权利.实现自由从来都是人类的理想.正因为自由是一种普遍精神,内在地具有自主性、客观性、能动性、选择性、历史性,以及自发地从事认识、实践和发明创造的性质,具有社会道德和多元价值的含义,因此马克思终生酷爱自由,憎恨剥夺人民群众自由权利的行为,把全部身心都奉献给无产阶级解放事业,以使人类获得真正自由的本性.     

论合同解释对当事人自治否定的正当性与矫正性制度安排

法官在解释有争议合同条款时 ,是以“合理第三人”为标准的客观解释而得出的意思 ,如果这种意思被当事人所接受 ,也可以说是当事人的新的意思。也可能以“合理第三人”为标准而得出的意思因异于双方意思不被双方当事人所接受 ,但双方当事人又不愿意因错误而撤销合同 ,即愿意保持原来合同的有效性 ,法官就只能依被解释出的意思进行裁判。在法官对合同进行补充解释中 ,当事人因未约定缺漏内容 ,根本无所谓合意。因此 ,在补充解释中 ,如果说是当事人的意思 ,就显得更加牵强。在这种时候 ,当事人承担了一种根本不是源于其约定的权利义务 ,在这里已经从实际上消灭了当事人自治 ,而代之以以裁判为目的的“规范性意思”。那么 ,如果这种解释已经完全背离了当事人的意志 ,应当通过撤销制度来维护意思自治的完整性。