Advertisement

Another Perspective on “Neurolaw”: The Use of Brain Imaging in Civil Litigation Regarding Mental Competence

  • Sonia Desmoulin-CanselierEmail author
Chapter
  • 38 Downloads

Abstract

The hypothesis of a rise of “neurolaw” shall not be accepted as an obvious and universal truth without taking civil cases and civil law into consideration. This chapter is intended as a contribution to the discussion, analyzing rulings on cases which mentioned MRIs and brain scans as evidence to challenge the validity of civil legal instruments, based on a claim of mental incompetence (also called “insanité”) in France and in the USA The aim of the study is to test an hypothetical “fascination effect” on judges and to evaluate the true impact in civil jurisprudence of this type of evidence.

References

  1. Aharoni E et al (2013) Neuroprediction of future rearrest. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110(15):6223–6228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aronson JD (2010) The law’s use of brain evidence. Annu Rev Law Soc Sci 6:93–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barbee M (2011) Juveniles are different: juvenile life without parole after Graham v. Florida. Miss Law J 81(2):299–325Google Scholar
  4. Beecher-Monas E, Garcia-Rill E (1999) The law and the brain: judging scientific evidence of intent. J Appellate Prac Process 1(2):243–277 (article 4)Google Scholar
  5. Brown T, Murphy E (2010) Through a scanner darkly: functional neuroimaging as evidence of a criminal defendant’s past mental states. Stanford Law Rev 62(4):1119–1208Google Scholar
  6. Byk C (2011) Neurosciences et administration de la preuve pénale devant les juridictions des États-Unis. Médecine Droit 106:59–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Byk C (2012) Les neurosciences: une contribution à l’identité individuelle ou au contrôle social ? Revue de droit sanitaire et social 5:800–807Google Scholar
  8. Casile-Hugues G (2012) La responsabilité pénale à la lumière des neurosciences. Revue pénitentiaire et de droit pénal 1:9–11Google Scholar
  9. Centre d’analyse stratégique (2012) Le cerveau et la loi: éthique et pratique du neurodroit. Note d’analyse n° 282Google Scholar
  10. Chamak B, Moutaud M (dir) (2014) Neurosciences et société, enjeux des savoirs et pratiques sur le cerveau. Armand Colin, ParisGoogle Scholar
  11. Chandler JA (2015) Mind, brain and law: issues at the intersection of neuroscience, personal identity and the legal system. In: Clausen J, Levy N (eds) Handbook of neuroethics, vol 1. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 441–458Google Scholar
  12. Churchland PS (2012) Braintrust. What neuroscience tells us about morality. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  13. Claydon L, Catley P (2012) Neuroscientific evidence in the English Courts. In: Spranger TM (ed) International neurolaw: a comparative analysis. Springer, New York, pp 305–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Craigie J, Coram A (2013) Irrationality, mental capacities and neuroscience. In: Vincent NA (ed) Neuroscience and legal responsibility. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 85–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. de Kogel CH, Schrama WM, Smit M (2014) Civil law and neuroscience. Psychiatry Psychol Law J Aust N Z Assoc Psychiatry 21(2):272–285Google Scholar
  16. Denno DW (2015) The myth of the double-edged sword: an empirical study of neuroscience evidence in criminal cases. Boston Coll Law Rev 56:493–551Google Scholar
  17. Drobac JA (2015) The myth of ‘legal’ consent in a consumer culture. In: Pawar A (ed) Facets of consumerism in a global economy. Twenty First Century Publications, New York. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2647488Google Scholar
  18. Dumit J (2004) Picturing personhood. Brain scans and biomedical identity. Princeton University Press, pp 109–127Google Scholar
  19. Dumoulin L (2000) L’expertise judiciaire dans la construction du jugement: de la ressource à la contrainte. Droit et société 44–45:212–223Google Scholar
  20. Edersheim JG et al (2012) Neuroimaging, diminished capacity and mitigation. In: Simpson JR (ed) Neuroimaging in forensic psychiatry. From the clinic to the courtroom. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, pp 163–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ehrenberg A (2015) Se définir par son cerveau. Esprit, January 2015, p 68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Encinas de Munagorri R (2014) Les techniques d’imagerie cérébrale dans le cadre d’expertises judiciaires. Exp Dermatol 113:8–12Google Scholar
  23. Farah MJ, Hook CJ (2013) The seductive allure of “seductive allure”. Perspect Psychol Sci 8:88–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Farahani N (2016) Neuroscience and behavioral genetics in US criminal law: an empirical analysis. J Law Biosci 2:485–509Google Scholar
  25. Feigenson N (2006) Brain imaging and courtroom evidence: on the admissibility and persuasiveness of fMRI. Int J Law Context 2(3):233–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Feuillet-Ligier B, Orfali K, Schamps G (eds) (2016) Protecting the human body: legal and bioethical perspectives from around the world. Brussels, BruylantGoogle Scholar
  27. Forest D (2014) Neuroscepticisme. Ithaque, ParisGoogle Scholar
  28. Freeman M (ed) (2010) Law and neuroscience. Current legal issues vol 13. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  29. Gaumont-Prat H (2011) La loi du 7 juillet 2011 relative à la bioéthique et l’encadrement des neurosciences. Les petites affiches 231:10–13Google Scholar
  30. Gkotsi GM, Moulin V, Gasser J (2015) Les Neurosciences au Tribunal: de la responsabilité à la dangerosité, enjeux éthiques soulevés par la nouvelle loi française. L'Encéphale 41:385–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Granacher RP (2008) Commentary: applications of functional neuroimaging to civil litigation of mild traumatic brain injury. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 36(3):323–328Google Scholar
  32. Greely HT (2011) Neuroscience and criminal responsibility: proving ‘can’t help himself’ as a narrow bar to criminal liability. In: Freeman M (ed) Law and neuroscience. Current legal issues vol 13. Oxford University Press, pp 61–77Google Scholar
  33. Greely HT, Illes J (2007) Neuroscience-based lie detection: the urgent need for regulation. Am J Law Med 33:377–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Guidicelli-delage G (dir) (2006) Les transformations de l’administration de la preuve pénale: perspectives comparées (Allemagne, Belgique, Espagne, Etats-Unis, France, Italie, Portugal, Royaume-Uni). LGDJ, ParisGoogle Scholar
  35. Illes J, Sahakian BJ (eds) (2011) The Oxford handbook of neuroethics. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 151–226Google Scholar
  36. Jennings JC (2010) Juvenile justice, sullivan, and Graham: how the Supreme Court’s decision will change the neuroscience debate. Duke Law Technol Rev 006:1–10Google Scholar
  37. Jones O, Schall JD, Shen FX (2014a) Law and neuroscience. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  38. Jones OD, Shen FX (2012) Law and neuroscience in the United States. In: Spranger TM (ed) International neurolaw: a comparative analysis. Springer, New York, pp 351–380Google Scholar
  39. Jones OD, Buckholtz JW, Schall JD, Marois R (2014b) Brain imaging for judges: an introduction to law and neuroscience. Court Rev 50:44–47Google Scholar
  40. Kapp MB (2010) Legal issues arising in the process of determining decisional capacity in older persons. Care Management Journals: Journal of Long-Term Health Care. https://ssrn.com/abstract=1568888
  41. Kola NJ, Brodie JD (2012) Application of neuroimaging in relationship to competence to stand trial and insanity. In: Simpson JR (ed) Neuroimaging in forensic psychiatry. From the clinic to the courtroom. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, pp 147–162Google Scholar
  42. Labrusse-riou C (2007) Ecrits de bioéthique. PUF Quadrige, ParisCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Larrieu P (2011) La modulation du droit pénal en fonction de l’âge des personnes. In: Droulers O, Guiselin E (dir) Regards croisés sur l’influence de l’âge en sciences humaines et sociales, L’Harmattan, Paris, pp 97–103Google Scholar
  44. Larrieu P (2012) Le droit à l’ère des neurosciences. Médecine Droit:106–110Google Scholar
  45. Larrieu P (2015) Neurosciences et droit pénal. Le cerveau dans le prétoire. L’Harmattan, ParisGoogle Scholar
  46. Larrieu P, Roullet B, Gavaghan C (dir) (2013) Neurolex sed… dura-lex. L’impact des neurosciences sur les disciplines juridiques et les autres sciences humaines: études comparées, Journal de Droit Comparé du Pacifique, WellingtonGoogle Scholar
  47. Leclerc O (2005) Le juge et l’expert. Contribution à l’étude des rapports entre le droit et la science. LGDJ, ParisGoogle Scholar
  48. Liu CT (2015) Scanning the evidence: the evidentiary admissibility of expert witness testimony on MRI brain scans in civil cases in the post-Daubert era. N Y Univ Annu Surv Am Law 70:479–535Google Scholar
  49. Macmillan SN, Vaughn MS (2010) Weighing the evidence: neuroimagery evidence of brain trauma or disorders in courts. Crim Law Bull 46(3):59–77Google Scholar
  50. McCabe DP, Castel AD (2008) Seeing is believing: the effect of brain images on judgments of scientific reasoning. Cognition 107(1):343–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. McCabe DP, Castel AD, Rhodes MG (2011) The influence of fMRI lie detection evidence on juror decision-making. Behav Sci Law 29(4):566–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Morse SJ (2006) Brain overclaim syndrome and criminal responsibility: a diagnostic note. Ohio State J Crim Law 3:397–412Google Scholar
  53. Morse SJ (2014) The status of neurolaw: a plea for current modesty and future cautious optimism. Court Rev 50:94.  https://doi.org/10.1177/009318531103900405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Murrow G, Murrow R (2015) A hypothetical neurological association between dehumanization and human rights abuses. J Law Biosci 2(2):336–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Nugent KM (2012) Neuroimaging and the constitution. In: Simpson JR (ed) Neuroimaging in forensic psychiatry. From the clinic to the courtroom. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, pp 275–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Oullier O (coord) (2012) Le cerveau et la loi. Analyse de l’émergence du neurodroit, Document de travail n° 2012-07, Centre d’analyse stratégiqueGoogle Scholar
  57. Pignatel L, Geneves V (2016) Etat de l’art “Droit et Neurosciences” Rapport de recherche pour la Mission de recherche Droit & Justice, pp 63–54. http://www.gip-recherche-justice.fr/publication/droit-et-neurosciences/
  58. Rychlak RJ, Rychlak JF (1997) Mental health experts on trial: free will and determinism in the courtroom. W V Law Rev 100(193). https://ssrn.com/abstract=2276258
  59. Santosuosso A (2012) Neuroscience and converging technologies in Italy: from free will approach to humans as not disconnected entities. In: Spranger TM (ed) International neurolaw: a comparative analysis. Springer, New York, pp 197–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Sordino MC (2014) Le procès pénal confronté aux neurosciences: science sans conscience… ? AJ Pénal:58–62Google Scholar
  61. Spranger TM (ed) (2012) International neurolaw: a comparative analysis. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  62. Sternberg EJ (2010) My brain made me do it: the rise of neuroscience and the threat to moral responsibility. Prometheus, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  63. Vincent NA (ed) (2013) Neuroscience and legal responsibility. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  64. Weisberg DS et al (2008) The seductive allure of neuroscience explanations. J Cogn Neurosci 20(3):470–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Witzel J (2012) Implications of neuroimaging for dangerousness assessment. In: Simpson JR (ed) Neuroimaging in forensic psychiatry. From the clinic to the courtroom. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, pp 195–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Yurkiewicz I (2010) “My brain made me do it”: can neuroimaging undermine the case for criminal punishment? Penn Bioeth J 6(2):14–15Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Nantes, Faculty of LawNantesFrance

Personalised recommendations