Neurolaw: How neuroscience evidence can provide both positive and negative effects in legal settings.

In the topic of law and court cases, Neuroscience has become increasingly relevant to criminal law within the past few years. Neurolaw is an interdisciplinary field that aims to dive deep into the interaction between the law and neuroscience. This work is done by lawyers, philosophers, and neuroscientists, and neuroscience can be beneficial in informing laws and legal proceedings, as well as supporting claims that mental states and mental processes in a defendant are atypical. Both Katrina Sifferd’s research, as well as David Freedman's and Simona Zaami’s analysis of Neurolaw, emerge in how Neurolaw not only has the potential to enhance mental assessments within defendants, as well as provide evidence that can be used in the courtroom, but can also pose significant limitations as setbacks as well.

              In 2019, the International Journal of Law and Psychiatry published an in-depth article on how neuroscience can be used within forensic assessments to provide more evidence about the mental states of defendants, and perhaps even be used to mitigate sentences. A specific study mentioned in this article had a group of people who weren’t knowledgeable in the fields of neuroscience and neurolaw, serve as mock jurors in a case. The group was then presented evidence on brain-based and psychological disorders, and when said evidence was presented as untreatable, it led it increased civil commitment sentences, specifically involuntary hospitalization. This study shows how neurolaw can be both promising as well as ominous, as while the presentation of brain-based and psychological evidence to jurors tended to have a “mitigating effect on the harshness of the prison sentence imposed”, but also caused stigmatizing effects when introduced as untreatable (Freedman et. al 5). This study raised worries about how presenting neuroscience evidence in court can impact societal perceptions of mental conditions and increase stigma around the topic as well.

              In the research article provided by Katrina Sifferd, they dive into the role neuroscience in decisions has on criminal responsibility. According to the U.S. legal system, to be found guilty of a crime “a defendant must not only have performed a prohibited act, she must also have done so in a legally culpable state of mind” (Jones et. al 5). This article specifically mentions New York v. Herbert Weinstein, where it was found that a man who violently killed his wife had a large arachnoid cyst in his prefrontal cortex. With knowledge of this evidence, the defense stated that Weinstein had impaired self-control when murdering his wife, and this mitigated his sentencing. This very example shows how neuroscience can provide information about specific cases, and therefore be intertwined with the legal system.

              Both articles use specific studies and examples to show how neuroscience evidence can have major impacts on legal systems—both positive and negative. As neurolaw becomes increasingly relevant, it is important to note how this is both promising and implicating. Sifferd provides an example of how Neurolaw can be promising, with neuroimaging being able to provide evidence that can be used to prove that a defendant is not responsible for the crime, the International Journal of Law and Psychiatry shows how such evidence can also cause stigmatizing effects towards mental issues in society. Overall, neurolaw can be both useful and implicating in legal settings.

Resources:

Freedman, D., & Zaami, S. (2019). Neuroscience and mental state issues in forensic assessment. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 65, 101437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2019.03.006

Jones, O. D., Marois, R., Farah, M. J., & Greely, H. T. (2013). Law and neuroscience. The Journal of Neuroscience, 33(45), 17624–17630. https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.3254-13.2013