Advertisement

Are We Ready for an Expanded Use of Neuroscientific Evidence in the Courtroom?

Chapter
  • 852 Downloads
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Ethics book series (BRIEFSETHIC)

Abstract

Evidence in the form of behavioural genetics and brain imaging has started to reach the courtroom. In this concluding chapter, the underlying validity of these methods will be examined. After review it will be determined that electroencephalography, positron emission tomography and functional magnetic resonance imaging are all appropriate techniques for examining the working brain. Despite being scientifically valid, however, it does not follow automatically that the uses for which such evidence has been offered in criminal cases were necessarily justified. Based on current experience, judiciaries would be wise to wait for more robust validation of neurobiological evidence before expansion of its use. This does not mean, however, that data derived via these techniques will not be integral to criminal proceedings in the future. Before taking that step, more closely matched reference populations need to be established, and the interaction of environmental stimuli alongside genetics needs to be better understood.

Keywords

Brain overclaim syndrome Christmas tree effect Determinism Ecological validity fMRI G2i Moral responsibility Reverse inference 

References

  1. Aguirre G.K. 2014. Functional neuroimaging: technical, logical and social perspectives. Hastings Center Report, March–April 2014, S8–S18.Google Scholar
  2. Ariely, D., and G.S. Berns. 2010. Neuromarketing: the hope and hype of neuroimaging in business. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 11: 284–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baum, M.L. 2013. The monoamine oxidase A (MAOA) genetic predisposition to impulsive violence: is it relevant to criminal cases? Neuroethics 6: 287–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bennett C.M., A.A. Baird, M.B. Miller, and G.L. Wolford 2010. Neural correlates of interspecies perspective taking in the post-mortem arctic salmon: an argument for proper multiple comparisons correction. Journal of Serendipitous and Unexpected Results 1:1–5. Available at http://pages.vassar.edu/abigailbaird/files/2014/06/bennett_salmon.pdf. Last accessed 18th Aug 2015.
  5. Ben-Shakhar G., and M. Kremnitzer 2011. The concealed information test in the courtroom: legal aspects. In: Memory detection: theory and application of the concealed information test, eds. Verschuere, B., Ben-Shakhar, G., Meijer, E., 276–292. New York, USA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bioethics Commission. 2015. Gray matters (volume 2): topics at the intersection of neuroscience, ethics, and society. Available online at http://bioethics.gov/sites/default/files/GrayMatter_V2_508.pdf. Last accessed 8th Aug 2015. Washington DC, USA: Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues.
  7. Blakemore, S.-J. 2012. Imaging brain development: the adolescent brain. Neuroimage 61: 397–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brass, M., and P. Haggard. 2007. To do or not to do: the neural signature of self-control. The Journal of Neuroscience 27: 9141–9145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bright, D.A., and J. Goodman-Delahunty. 2006. Gruesome evidence and emotion: anger, blame, and jury decision-making. Law and Human Behavior 30: 183–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brunner, H.G., M. Nelen, X.O. Breakefield, H.H. Ropers, and B.A. van Oost. 1993. Abnormal behavior associated with a point mutation in the structural gene for monoamine oxidase A. Science 262: 578–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cases, O., I. Seif, J. Grimsby, P. Gaspar, K. Chen, S. Pournin, U. Muller, M. Aguet, C. Babinet, J.C. Shih, and E. De Maeyer. 1995. Aggressive behavior and altered amounts of brain serotonin and norepinephrine in mice lacking MAOA. Science 268: 1763–1766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Caspi, A., J. McClay, T.E. Moffitt, J. Mill, J. Martin, I.W. Craig, A. Taylor, and R. Poulton. 2002. Role of genotype in the cycle of violence in maltreated children. Science 297: 851–854.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chivers T. 2010. Neuroscience, free will and determinism: ‘I’m just a machine’. Telegraph, 12th Oct 2010. Available online at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/8058541/Neuroscience-free-will-and-determinism-Im-just-a-machine.html. Last accessed 8th August 2015.
  14. Eastman, N., and C. Campbell. 2006. Neuroscience and legal determination of criminal responsibility. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 7: 311–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Economist. 2006. Free to choose? The Economist, 19th December 2006. Available online at http://www.economist.com/node/8453850. Last accessed 1st Sept 2012.
  16. Faigman, D.L. 1999. Legal alchemy: the use and misuse of science in the law. New York: St Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  17. Farah, M.J. 2014. Brain images, babies, and bathwater: critiquing critiques of functional neuroimaging. Hastings Center Report, March–April 2014, S19–S30.Google Scholar
  18. Farah, M.J., B. Hutchinson, E.A. Phelps, and A.D. Wagner. 2014. functional MRI-based lie detection: scientific and societal changes. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 15: 123–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ford, E., and N. Aggarwal. 2012. Neuroethics of functional neuroimaging in the courtroom. In Neuroimaging in forensic psychiatry: from the clinic to the courtroom, ed. J.R. Simpson, 325–340. Chichester, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
  20. Fry, A., and C. Willmott. 2011. “Model organisms in biomedical research” (video). Available online at http://youtu.be/Jj5QlYlE66w. Last accessed 18th Oct 2012.
  21. Fry, A., and C. Willmott. 2012. The power of comparative genomics (video). Available online at http://youtu.be/mU9ROpm6d70. Last accessed 18th Oct 2012.
  22. Galván, A. 2014. Insights about adolescent behavior, plasticity, and policy from neuroscience research. Neuron 83: 262–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Glimcher, P.W., and A. Rustichini. 2004. Neuroeconomics: the consilience of brain and decision. Science 306: 447–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Greene, E., and B.S. Cahill. 2012. Effects of neuroimaging evidence on mock juror decision making. Behavioral Sciences and the Law 30: 280–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gurley, J.R., and D.K. Marcus. 2008. The effects of neuroimaging and brain injury on insanity defenses. Behavioral Sciences and the Law 26: 85–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gutting, G. 2011. What makes free will free? New York Times, 19th Oct 2011. Available online at http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/19/what-makes-free-will-free. Last accessed 2nd Sept 2012.
  27. Henry, S., and D. Plemmons. 2012. Neuroscience, neuropolitics and neuroethics: the complex case of crime, deception and fMRI. Science and Engineering Ethics 18: 573–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hudson, B.A. 2003. Understanding justice: an introduction to ideas, perspectives and controversies in modern penal theory, 2nd ed. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Jones, O.D., A.D. Wagner, D.L. Faigman, and M.E. Raichie. 2013. Neuroscientists in court. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 14: 730–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kühn, S., and M. Brass. 2009. When doing nothing is an option: the neural correlates of deciding whether to act or not. Neuroimage 46: 1187–1193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lopes da Silva, F. 2013. EEG and MEG: relevance to neuroscience. Neuron 80: 1112–1128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Maher, B. 2008. Personal genomes: the case of the missing heritability. Nature 456: 18–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Marks, J.H. 2010. A neuroskeptic’s guide to neuroethics and national security. American Journal of Bioethics: Neuroscience 1: 4–12.Google Scholar
  34. Martell, D.A. 2009. Neuroscience and the law: philosophical differences and practical constraints. Behavioral Sciences and the Law 27: 123–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McCabe, D.P., and A.D. Castel. 2008. Seeing is believing: the effect of brain images on judgments of scientific reasoning. Cognition 107: 343–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Michel, C.M., and M.M. Murray. 2012. Towards the utilization of EEG as a brain imaging tool. Neuroimage 61: 371–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Miller, E.K., and J.D. Cohen. 2001. An integrative theory of prefrontal cortex function. Annual Review of Neuroscience 24: 167–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Moriarty, J.C. 2008. Flickering admissibility: neuroimaging evidence in U.S. courts. Behavioural Sciences and the Law 26: 29–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Morse, S.J. 2006. Brain Overclaim Syndrome and criminal responsibility: a diagnostic note. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law 3: 397–412.Google Scholar
  40. Morse, S.J. 2011. Genetics and criminal responsibility. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 15: 378–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Noble, D. 2006. The music of life. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Ormerod, D., 2010. Quoted in law commission press release. New rules to decide who is fit to stand trial. 27th Oct 2010. No longer available on the Law Commission website, but archived at http://www.epolitix.com/stakeholder-websites/press-releases/press-release-details/newsarticle/new-rules-to-decide-who-is-fit-to-stand-trial///sites/law-commission/. Last accessed 6th Sept 2012.
  43. Poole S. 2012. Your brain on pseudoscience: the rise of popular neurobollocks. New Statesman, 6th Sept 2012. Available online at: http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/books/2012/09/your-brain-pseudoscience-rise-popular-neurobollocks. Last accessed 18th Aug 2015.
  44. Rachul, C., and A. Zarzeczny. 2012. The rise of neuroskepticism. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 35: 77–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rosenfeld, J.P., X. Hu, E. Labkovsky, J. Meixner, and M.R. Winograd. 2013. Review of recent studies and issues regarding the P300-based complex trial protocol for detection of concealed information. International Journal of Psychophysiology 90: 118–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Roskies, A. 2006. Neuroscientific challenges to free will and responsibility. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10: 419–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Roskies, A.L., N.J. Schweitzer, and M.J. Saks. 2013. Neuroimages in court: less biasing than feared. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 17: 99–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Royal Society. 2011. Brain waves module 4: neuroscience and the law. London: The Royal Society.Google Scholar
  49. Rushing, S.E. 2014. The admissibility of brain scans in criminal trials. Court Review 50: 62–69.Google Scholar
  50. Saks, M.J., N.J. Schweitzer, E. Aharoni, and K.A. Kiehl. 2014. The impact of neuroimages in the sentencing phase of capital trails. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 11: 105–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Schauer, F. 2010. Can bad science be good evidence? Neuroscience, Lie Detection and Beyond, Cornell Law Review 95: 1191–1219.Google Scholar
  52. Schweitzer, N.J., and M.J. Saks. 2011. Neuroimage evidence and the insanity defense. Behavioral Sciences and the Law 29: 592–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Schweitzer, N.J., M.J. Saks, E.R. Murphy, A.L. Roskies, and W. Sinnott-Armstrong. 2011. Neuroimages as evidence in a mens Rea defence: no impact. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 17: 357–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sinnott-Armstrong, W., and Nadel, L. 2011. Introduction. In Conscious will and responsibility, ed. W. Sinnott-Armstrong and L. Nadel, xi–xvi. New York, USA: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Stafford T. 2015. Why do we intuitively believe we have free will? BBC website, 7th Aug 2015. Available online at http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150806-why-your-intuitions-about-the-brain-are-wrong. Last accessed 8th Aug 2015.
  56. Vul, E., C. Harris, P. Winkielman, and H. Pasher. 2009. Puzzlingly high correlations in fMRI studies of emotion, personality, and social cognition. Perspectives on Psychological Science 4: 274–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Weisberg, D.S., F.C. Keil, J. Goodstein, E. Rawson, and J.R. Gray. 2008. The seductive allure of neuroscience explanations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 20: 470–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Zimmer, L., and A. Luxen. 2012. PET radiotracers for molecular imaging in the brain: past, present and future. Neuroimage 61: 363–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Molecular and Cell BiologyUniversity of LeicesterLeicesterUK

Personalised recommendations