In her talk regarding neurolaw, Katrina Sifferd, Ph.D., J.D., describes ways neuroscience might inform laws and legal proceedings. Dr. Sifferd highlights the contradictory relationship between law and philosophy, specifically questioning whether any individual can truly be held responsible for their actions. Dr. Sifferd recalls a book by Robert M. Sapolsky titled Determined: A Science of Life Without Free Will, where Sapolsky emphasizes that all human actions are merely a result of compounding instances of neuronal synapses and changing brain chemistry. Sapolsky argues against free will, claiming that the chemistry of ion channels and action potentials are not equivalent to true autonomy. Siffrerd explains that Sapolsky’s argument is one of the pitfalls within law and philosophy, adding that understanding the decision-making process as it is mediated within the brain is necessary in order to accurately assess law through a neuroscience lens.
Dr. Sifferd further analyzes the complex nature of neuroscience and decision-making. She explains how neurolaw uses science to sort offenders, buttress claims, and offer alternatives to rehabilitation methods. Neuroscience sorts offenders by determining the boundaries between juvenile and adult proceedings, labeling defendants with mental health vocabulary, and revealing executive function deficits. Understanding the mental state of a defendant is vital to properly interpreting their case. In her book Responsible Brains: Neuroscience, Law, and Human Culpability, Dr. Sifferd analyzes a series of case studies in which jurors were challenged with judging defendants of deficient mental states. These defendants all committed a crime, yet held questionable levels of responsibility due to their complex mental state. Dr. Sifferd speaks on the theory of compatibilism, noting that responsibility for actions may be informed by neuroscience while maintaining separate from blame and and punishment. While some causes for behavior may establish the action as a punishable offense, other causes may deprive the defendant from the burden of responsibility.
Dr. Siffred’s arguments for compatibilism continue to be supported by novel research. In the article titled “The Neurobiology of Decision-Making and Responsibility: Reconciling Mechanism and Mindedness,” authors Michael Shadlen and Adina Roskies discuss advancements in neuroscience that demonstrate the mechanisms behind decision-making. Shadlen and Roskies specifically note the importance of decision-making in terms of legal responsibility and free will, underscoring a notion similar to that of Dr. Siffred who claims that it is imperative to recognize the validity of the compatibilist theory. Similar to Dr. Siffred, this article notes that the continuous morphing of brain chemistry and brain states makes it impractical to rely on neurolaw alone for evidence and innocence judgements. Shadlen and Roskies’ proposals of novel brain mechanisms allow individuals like Dr. Siffred to continue approaching the complexities of neurolaw and fight for fair interpretation of mental states within the justice system.
Along with these novel mechanisms, new proposals for implementing the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in neurolaw proceedings present an alternative to understanding mental states in an objective matter. In his paper “Predictability and reasonableness of doubt in the age of AI-law and neurolaw,” Rocco Neri suggests that nanotechnology should continue to be implemented in interviews with defendants, and notes that this procedure may become mandatory in contrast to its current voluntary approach. In her talk, Dr. Siffred notes on the importance of upholding neuroethics within neurolaw proceedings. She claims that there are certain boundaries to retrieving neural information which have yet to be legally established due to the contemporary nature of neurolaw as a legal branch. With this perspective, Neri’s suggested approach to using AI in neurolaw proceedings would be promptly shut down in the courtroom.
Dr. Siffred’s thoughts on the importance of understanding mechanisms for decision-making processes, the theory of compatibilism, and an obligation to uphold neuroethics is well supported as well as debated through modern advancements in neurolaw. Novel research reveals the intricate complexities of decision-making processes, and modern studies have begun to analyze the implications of neuroethics within legal proceedings. While the topic of neurolaw continues to expand, it is important for scientists and lawyers alike to consider how their work may affect individual proceedings and lives. As science and reason come together through neurolaw, our judicial system can continue to grow in accuracy and validity.
References:
Cardoso, Renato César. (2021) “Neurolaw and the neuroscience of free will: An overview.” SCIO: Revista de Filosofía, no. 21, pp. 55–81, https://doi.org/10.46583/scio_2021.21.843.
Hirstein, W., Sifferd, K. & Fagan, T. (2018). Responsible Brains: Neuroscience, Law, and Human Culpability. New York, NY, USA: MIT Press. Edited by Katrina Sifferd & Tyler Fagan.
Sapolsky, Robert M. (2023) Determined: A Science of Life without Free Will. Penguin Press.
Shadlen, M. N., & Roskies, A. L. (2019). The neurobiology of decision-making and responsibility: reconciling mechanism and mindedness. Frontiers in neuroscience, 6, 56. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2012.00056
Nerri, R. (2023) “Predictability and reasonableness of doubt in the age of AI-law and neurolaw.” The Lawyer Quarterly, vol. 13, no. 3.
No comments:
Post a Comment