Abstract
Neuroimaging showing brain abnormalities is increasingly being introduced in criminal court proceedings to argue that a defendant could not control his behavior and should not be held responsible for it. But imaging has questionable probative value because it does not directly capture brain function or a defendant’s mental states at the time of a criminal act. Advanced techniques could transform imaging from a coarse-grained measure of correlations between brain states and behavior to a fine-grained measure of causal connections between them. Even if this occurs, bias and other attitudes may unduly influence jurors’ interpretation of the data. Moreover, judges’ decisions about whether neuroimaging data is legally relevant and admissible are normative decisions based on more than empirical evidence. Advanced neuroimaging will better inform assessments of criminal responsibility but will not supplant or explain away the psychological and normative foundation of the criminal law.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aharoni, E., G. Vincent, C. Harenski, et al. 2013. Neuroprediction of future arrest. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110: 6223–6228.
Amodio, D., and C. Frith. 2006. Meeting of the minds: the medial frontal cortex and social cognition. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 7: 268–277.
Berlin, L. 2014. Neuroimgaing, expert witnesses, and ethics: convergence and conflict in the courtroom. AJOB Neuroscience 5(2): 3–8.
Blair, R.James. 2003. Neurobiological basis of psychopathy. British Journal of Psychiatry 182: 5–7.
Blair, R.James. 2013. The neurobiology of psychopathic traits in youths. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 14: 786–799.
Burns, J., and R. Swerdlow. 2003. Right orbitofrontal tumor with pedophilia symptom and constructional apraxia sign. Archives of Neurology 62: 437–440.
Casey, B., N. Craddock, B. Cuthbert et al. 2013. DSM-5 and RDoC: progress in psychiatry research? Nature Reviews Neuroscience 14: 810–814.
Cima, M., F. Tonnaer, and M. Hauser. 2010. Psychopaths know right from wrong but don’t care. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience 5: 59–67.
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals. 1993. 516 US 869.
Freeman, M. (ed.). 2011. Law and Neuroscience: Current Legal Issues,, vol. 13. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Frye v. United States. 1923. 293 F. 1013, D.C. Cir.
Greely, H. 2013. Mind reading, neuroscience, and the law. In Morse and Roskies, 120–149.
Gregory, S., D. ffytche, A. Simmons, et al. 2012. The antisocial brain: psychopathy matters. Archives of General Psychiatry 69: 962–972.
Hughes, V. 2010. Science in court: head case. Nature 464: 340–342.
Insel, T., B. Cuthbert, and M. Garvey. 2010. Research Doman Criteria (RDoC): toward a new classification framework for research on mental disorders. American Journal of Psychiatry 164: 748–751.
Jones, O., A. Wagner, D. Faigman, and M. Raichle. 2013. Neuroscientists in court. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 14: 730–736.
Lacy, J., and C. Stark. 2013. The neuroscience of memory: implications for the courtroom. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 14: 649–658.
Little, J., and A. Carter. 2012. Subcellular synaptic connectivity of layer 2 pyramidal neurons in the medial prefrontal cortex. Journal of Neuroscience 32: 12808–12819.
M’Naghten’s Case. 1843. 8 Eng. Rep. 718, 722.
Mobbs, D., H. Lau, O. Jones, and C. Frith. 2007. Law, responsibility, and the brain. PLoS Biology 5(4): e103. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0050103.
Model Penal Code. 1985. Philadelphia: American Law Institute. Official Draft and Revised Comments.
Morse, S. 2008. Psychopathy and Criminal Responsibility. Neuroethics 1(3): 205–212.
Morse, S. 2011. Lost in translation? an essay on law and neuroscience. In Freeman, 529–562.
Morse, S. 2013. Common criminal law compatibilism. In Vincent (2013b), 27–52.
Morse, S., and Newsome, W. 2013. Criminal responsibility, criminal competence, and prediction of criminal behavior. In Morse and Roskies (2013), 150–178.
Morse, S., and A. Roskies (eds.). 2013. A Primer on Criminal Law and Neuroscience. New York: Oxford University Press.
Morse, S. 2014. Brain imaging in the courtroom: the quest for legal relevance. AJOB Neuroscience 5(2): 24–27.
Paus, T., M. Keshavan, and J. Giedd. 2008. Why do many psychiatric disorders emerge during adolescence? Nature Reviews Neuroscience 9: 947–957.
Poldrack, R. 2011. Inferring mental states from neuroimaging data from reverse inference to large-scale decoding. Neuron 72: 692–697.
Rogers, K. 2013. Grandmother charged in death of Milton, Ont. toddler left alone in hot car. Globe and Mail July 5. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/grandmother-charged-in-eath-of-milton-toddler-left-alone-in-hot-car/article/013019696.
Roper v. Simmons. 2005. 543 U.S. 551.
Roskies, A. 2013. Brain imaging techniques. In Morse and Roskies (2013), 37–74.
Roskies, A and Morse, S. 2013. Neuroscience and the law: looking forward. In Morse and Roskies, 240–256.
Roskies, A. and Sinnott-Armstrong, W. 2011. Brain images as evidence in the criminal law. In Freeman, 97–114.
Rutter, M. 2013. Biomarkers: potential and challenges. In Singh, Sinnott-Armstrong, and Savulescu, 188–205.
Schacter, D., and E. Loftus. 2013. Memory and law: what can cognitive neuroscience contribute? Nature Neuroscience 16: 119–123.
Schauer, F. 2009. Neuroscience, lie-detection, and the law. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 14: 101–103.
Schweitzer, N., and M. Saks. 2011. Neuroimaging evidence and the insanity defense. Behavioral Sciences and the Law 29: 592–607.
Singh, I., W. Sinnott-Armstrong, and J. Savulescu (eds.). 2013. Bioprediction, Biomarkers, and Bad Behavior. New York: Oxford University Press.
Tabery, J. 2012. The double-edged sword: does biomechanism increase or decrease judges’ sentencing of psychopaths? Science 337: 846–849.
Tulving, E., and F. Craik. 2005. Oxford Handbook of Memory. New York: Oxford University Press.
Viding E. and McCrory E. 2013. Genetic biomarker research of callous-unemotional traits in children: implications for the law and policy making. In Singh, Sinnott-Armstrong, and Savulescu (2013), 153–172.
Vincent, N. 2011. Neuroimaging and responsibility assessments. Neuroethics 4(1): 35–49.
Vincent, N. 2013a. Law and neuroscience: historical context, in Vincent (2013b), 1–24.
Vincent, N. (ed.). 2013b. Neuroscience and Legal Responsibility. New York: Oxford University Press.
Watrous, A., T. Nitin, C. Conner, et al. 2013. Frequency-specific network connectivity increases underlie accurate spatiotemporal memory retrieval. Nature Neuroscience 16: 349–356.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Glannon, W. The Limitations and Potential of Neuroimaging in the Criminal Law. J Ethics 18, 153–170 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10892-014-9169-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10892-014-9169-y