Neurolaw: Will it Become Necessary to Escalate to This?

      In the paper Intro to Neurolaw written by Jones et al, we see a new field begin to open up, one in which still has a lot of controversy surrounding it. When Katrina Sifferd came to speak about Neurolaw, there was a lot to be learned from the intersectional crossroads of these two very different areas of work, Neuroscience and Law. Neurolaw can be used to lighten sentences or completely exonerate individuals from their crimes, it can influence the law and Supreme Court decisions.  It has begun to pick up a lot of interest from surrounding parties in its use for its different uses in the realm of law.

    We see this in the review, where Jones et al states: “And in the recent case, Miller v Alabama, the United States Supreme Court referenced, in finding that mandatory sentences of life without the possibility of parole are unconstitutional for juvenile offenders, group-based brain science findings regarding impulse control, planning ahead, and risk avoidance” ( Jones et al). This also escalates to a much more serious matter, when we see that EEG’s and other brain scans are strong enough to help prison sentences. Jones et al tells: “And in Florida v. Grady Nelson, the defendant offered EEG evidence of brain function abnormalities in an effort to avoid being sentenced to death for the murder of which he'd been convicted. The court admitted the evidence, and the defendant was by a narrow margin sentenced instead to life in prison. Two jurors reported afterward that the brain evidence made the difference in their voting not to execute him.” If that is a good thing or not, can be debated later. Regardless, the evidence of brain imaging being used in court to help people is becoming very real and is no doubt going to continue to accelerate rapidly. There is a situation which college students are faced with now, that this could help in the future. 

    Sophia Ankel writes in Business Insider, how students are recently are facing a huge influx of false accusations of using ChatGPT and AI to write papers, do their homework and more. Whilst some may actually do this, many do not. Half of this Texas A+M class failed their class, had their diplomas put on hold and could not graduate due to falsely being accused of using AI. One student states: “…had never heard of ChatGPT herself and was baffled by the accusation, noting that “she feels even worse considering it’s something she knows nothing about.” She immediately “reached out to the dean and CC’d the president of the university,” DearKick alleges, but did not immediately receive assistance and went to plead her case with administrators in person on Tuesday. DearKick adds that Mumm allegedly flunked “several” whole classes in similar fashion.” (Ankel). Students, now more than ever, are faced with an impossible situation where their lives are filled with technology but it is also being used against them. 

    So could it come to a point where students will need to defend themselves with something stronger than their word? What happens when there is no proof of their hard work, just a AI system saying it thinks it found something? I think if things continue to go in the way they are, we will soon have a court case with a falsely accused student. AI and chat GPT are useful tools when used correctly, but can also have several implications that can lead to a lot of issues with school. I think NeuroLaw can and should be used in cases like these in the future, with fMRI testing. fMRI testing is in the works of being used as a lie detector using BOLD signals in the brain to determine truthfulness. However, fMRI testing still has long ways to go. According to Langleben and Moriarty in “Using Brain Imaging for Lie Detection: Where Science, Law, and Research Policy Collide. “In clinical development terms, the fMRI lie detector is stuck between Phase I and Phase II clinical trials, with the commercial start-ups lacking the capacity to proceed to Phase III—a common situation with compounds or devices of unclear commercial value”. So for now, students are still out of luck. They will continue to have to use Google Documents that time stamp their work or consistently save each draft of their essay in case something happens. I do see this beginning to happen in the future however, when fMRI gets to a point where it can be helpful, I think students will begin to turn to science to reveal the truth, when technology cannot. 

References

Ankel, Sophia. “A Texas Professor Failed More than Half of His Class after Chatgpt Falsely Claimed It Wrote Their Papers.” Business Insider, Business Insider, www.businessinsider.com/professor-fails-students-after-chatgpt-falsely-said-it-wrote-papers-2023-5. Accessed 13 Dec. 2023. 

Jones, Owen D., et al. “Law and neuroscience.” The Journal of Neuroscience, vol. 33, no. 45, 2013, pp. 17624–17630, https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.3254-13.2013. 

Langleben, Daniel D., and Jane Campbell Moriarty. “Using brain imaging for lie detection: Where science, law, and policy collide.” Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, vol. 19, no. 2, 2013, pp. 222–234, https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028841.