Are We Ready for an Expanded Use of Neuroscientific Evidence in the Courtroom?
- 852 Downloads
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.
KeywordsBrain overclaim syndrome Christmas tree effect Determinism Ecological validity fMRI G2i Moral responsibility Reverse inference
- Aguirre G.K. 2014. Functional neuroimaging: technical, logical and social perspectives. Hastings Center Report, March–April 2014, S8–S18.Google Scholar
- 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.
- 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
- 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.
- 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.
- Economist. 2006. Free to choose? The Economist, 19th December 2006. Available online at http://www.economist.com/node/8453850. Last accessed 1st Sept 2012.
- Faigman, D.L. 1999. Legal alchemy: the use and misuse of science in the law. New York: St Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
- Farah, M.J. 2014. Brain images, babies, and bathwater: critiquing critiques of functional neuroimaging. Hastings Center Report, March–April 2014, S19–S30.Google Scholar
- 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
- Fry, A., and C. Willmott. 2011. “Model organisms in biomedical research” (video). Available online at http://youtu.be/Jj5QlYlE66w. Last accessed 18th Oct 2012.
- Fry, A., and C. Willmott. 2012. The power of comparative genomics (video). Available online at http://youtu.be/mU9ROpm6d70. Last accessed 18th Oct 2012.
- 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.
- 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
- Marks, J.H. 2010. A neuroskeptic’s guide to neuroethics and national security. American Journal of Bioethics: Neuroscience 1: 4–12.Google Scholar
- Morse, S.J. 2006. Brain Overclaim Syndrome and criminal responsibility: a diagnostic note. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law 3: 397–412.Google Scholar
- Noble, D. 2006. The music of life. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- 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.
- 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.
- Royal Society. 2011. Brain waves module 4: neuroscience and the law. London: The Royal Society.Google Scholar
- Rushing, S.E. 2014. The admissibility of brain scans in criminal trials. Court Review 50: 62–69.Google Scholar
- Schauer, F. 2010. Can bad science be good evidence? Neuroscience, Lie Detection and Beyond, Cornell Law Review 95: 1191–1219.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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.