Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Biological Determinism, Free Will and Moral Responsibility

Part of the book series: SpringerBriefs in Ethics ((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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 64.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Or, conversely, a belief that life is entirely driven by random forces, a view that is untenable for the vast majority of people.

  2. 2.

    Although, as noted earlier, practitioners are sanguine about the likelihood of reform making it all the way to the statutes.

  3. 3.

    Similar concerns also mired the early uses of genetic fingerprinting, but these have since been overcome.

  4. 4.

    Of course the ways to achieve rehabilitation of young offenders is another matter entirely.

References

  • Aguirre G.K. 2014. Functional neuroimaging: technical, logical and social perspectives. Hastings Center Report, March–April 2014, S8–S18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ariely, D., and G.S. Berns. 2010. Neuromarketing: the hope and hype of neuroimaging in business. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 11: 284–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baum, M.L. 2013. The monoamine oxidase A (MAOA) genetic predisposition to impulsive violence: is it relevant to criminal cases? Neuroethics 6: 287–306.

    Article  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.

  • Blakemore, S.-J. 2012. Imaging brain development: the adolescent brain. Neuroimage 61: 397–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Eastman, N., and C. Campbell. 2006. Neuroscience and legal determination of criminal responsibility. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 7: 311–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  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.

  • Galván, A. 2014. Insights about adolescent behavior, plasticity, and policy from neuroscience research. Neuron 83: 262–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glimcher, P.W., and A. Rustichini. 2004. Neuroeconomics: the consilience of brain and decision. Science 306: 447–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, E., and B.S. Cahill. 2012. Effects of neuroimaging evidence on mock juror decision making. Behavioral Sciences and the Law 30: 280–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Jones, O.D., A.D. Wagner, D.L. Faigman, and M.E. Raichie. 2013. Neuroscientists in court. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 14: 730–736.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lopes da Silva, F. 2013. EEG and MEG: relevance to neuroscience. Neuron 80: 1112–1128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maher, B. 2008. Personal genomes: the case of the missing heritability. Nature 456: 18–21.

    Article  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 

  • Martell, D.A. 2009. Neuroscience and the law: philosophical differences and practical constraints. Behavioral Sciences and the Law 27: 123–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michel, C.M., and M.M. Murray. 2012. Towards the utilization of EEG as a brain imaging tool. Neuroimage 61: 371–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, E.K., and J.D. Cohen. 2001. An integrative theory of prefrontal cortex function. Annual Review of Neuroscience 24: 167–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moriarty, J.C. 2008. Flickering admissibility: neuroimaging evidence in U.S. courts. Behavioural Sciences and the Law 26: 29–49.

    Article  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 

  • Morse, S.J. 2011. Genetics and criminal responsibility. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 15: 378–380.

    Article  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.

  • Rachul, C., and A. Zarzeczny. 2012. The rise of neuroskepticism. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 35: 77–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roskies, A. 2006. Neuroscientific challenges to free will and responsibility. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10: 419–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schauer, F. 2010. Can bad science be good evidence? Neuroscience, Lie Detection and Beyond, Cornell Law Review 95: 1191–1219.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schweitzer, N.J., and M.J. Saks. 2011. Neuroimage evidence and the insanity defense. Behavioral Sciences and the Law 29: 592–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmer, L., and A. Luxen. 2012. PET radiotracers for molecular imaging in the brain: past, present and future. Neuroimage 61: 363–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of Leicester, Leicester, LE1 9HN, UK

    Chris Willmott

Authors
  1. Chris Willmott
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chris Willmott .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Willmott, C. (2016). Are We Ready for an Expanded Use of Neuroscientific Evidence in the Courtroom?. In: Biological Determinism, Free Will and Moral Responsibility. SpringerBriefs in Ethics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30391-8_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation