Tuesday, October 15, 2013

Neuroscience is Effective in Court Room

The speakers, Dr. Daniel Gurr and Dr. Debroah Denno, focused on the reasons and benefits of neuroscience being used as objective evidence in the courtroom. Both speakers reasoned that neuroscience evidence is as effective and useful as ballistics, DNA analysis, and fingerprint identification. However, many people are against the use of neuroscience; mainly prosecutors argue that the “judges might be so over awed by the technology” that they will lessen the deserved punishment. Many in criminology ask “is this technology really ready for prime time, or is it being abused?”
                Dr. Daniel Gurr would disagree and say this science is comparable to other forms of forensic science. Behavior is a product of brain processes. “We are what are brains do” said Dr. Gurr. Since we have technology now to view and understand the brain much more, researches have seen that when different parts of your brain is damaged or impaired there is a change to particular behavior. Thus, when in a courtroom if a criminal has been identified to have an abnormal occurrence in the brain, he/she should not be judged on the same standards as someone with a normal functioning brain.
                In a recent case, Dr. Domenico Mattiello, an Italian pediatrician who practiced for 30 years, is under trial for pedophilia. Leniency is being asked by his lawyers because of a small tumor found in his brain. The defense lawyers argues that the pressure in the brain caused from the tumor is causing a behavioral change. But is the defense “My brain made me do it: enough to lessen charges?” Are these pictures or stories of distorted minds scientific evidence or subjective stories used to sway the minds of juries and judges?
                Dr. Debroah Denno would answer first with a yes. Our brain is what makes us who we are. Without parts of the brain, our personalities would be extremely distorted. These pictures from fMRI, PET, and MRI scans are just as trustworthy as DNA analysis. When prosecutors argue that neuroscience is only used to create sympathy for the criminal, one can argue that evidence of bloody clothing, displays of murder scenes, and distraught eye witnesses are only used to pull the heart strings of the jury and judge. In any court room this evidence is acceptable.  
                As times passes, Neuroscience will be more intertwined into the court room. “After all Neuroscience seeks to find out how the brain functions and affects behavior. The Law’s main concern is with regulating behavior.” Once Neuroscience has been established, I believe more people will respect it as another branch of science.
Reference:

No comments:

Post a Comment