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