Intersection of Law and Neuroscience: Recent Research and Updates

 In 2013, Jones et al. discussed the growing intersection between neuroscientific evidence and its role in the justice system. They cited evidence from the United States v. Lorne Allan Semrau where fMRI was used to decide whether an individual's actions warranted criminal intent. In another case, Florida v. Grady Nelson, jurors considered whether an abnormal EEG should impact a defendant's sentencing. The article drew an interesting dichotomy between abnormal brain measurements and responsibility for a crime and whether individuals displaying these abnormalities should be treated for mental health deficits or sent to prison to serve their sentence. 

In 2023, an article published by the American Bar Association (ABA) published an article titled "The Pros and Cons of Neuroscience in the Legal System", and expanded on many ideas originally presented by the Jones et al article from 2013. The article focuses on five types of neuroscientific evidence including brain scans that may reveal neurological disorders, research that correlates neurological impairments in the frontal lobe to an increase in violent crimes, genetic factors that may influence one's likelihood to commit a crime, neuropsychological evidence regarding an individuals decision making and impairments in cognition to avoid the death penalty. 

Even after identifying these five types of neuroscientific evidence with the potential to impact criminal law, the ABA runs into similar issues cited in the 2013 Jones et al. article. Neuroscience, as a rapidly growing field is everchanging and advancements in neuroscientific imaging are occurring daily, making it difficult to standardize the type of neuroscientific evidence admissible in court. Both articles, however, stress the need for an interdisciplinary approach regarding neuroscience and law. Given difficulties in standardizing neuroscientific evidence, the ABA article acknowledges its potential when defendants suffer significant cognitive deficits. 

Continuing from dialogue originating from the Jones et al. paper, the American Bar Association highlights the role of neuroscientific evidence in determining an individual's cognitive capacity. Particularly in cases where individuals may be suffering from dementia or other disorders that affect cognitive function. This evidence may be essential to determine an individual's decision-making capabilities and ability to govern their own autonomy. Moreover, it may provide insights into guardianship and end-of-life care. However, conversations regarding guardianship often receive tremendous backlash for violating an individual's autonomy and raise many ethical concerns. On a more positive note, these individuals can be given better assistance when diagnosed with a neurological disorder to better ensure that people on their healthcare team, like doctors, nurses, and nursing home staff are putting the patient's best interest first. 

In conclusion, the ABA article continues critical conversation regarding the intersection of neuroscience and law originally discussed Jones et al. article from 2013. Both highlight the evolving landscape of neuroscientific evidence in the legal system, discuss the importance of continued conversations regarding ethical concerns, and stress a need for collaboration between legal and neuroscience communities to ensure a responsible and effective integration of neuroscience into the justice system.

References: 

Jones, Owen D. and Schall, Jeffrey D. and Shen, Francis X., Law and Neuroscience (August 19, 2020). Jones, Owen D. and Schall, Jeffrey D. and Shen, Francis X., LAW AND NEUROSCIENCE, 2nd Edition, ISBN 978-1-5438-0109-5, Forthcoming , Vanderbilt Law Research Paper No. 20-56, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3677088

The Pros and Cons of Neuroscience in the Legal System, www.americanbar.org/groups/law_aging/publications/bifocal/vol44/vol44issue5/prosandconsofneuroscience/. Accessed 14 Dec. 2023.