Neurolaw is widely recognized as an interdisciplinary field that attempts to link the field of neuroscience to law by the understanding of psychology and human behavior to incorporate the brain in legal studies. Neurolaw includes the use of neuro-specific tools, concepts, studies, and data in the best effort to test the limits of neurological effects and causes to cases presented in law almost every day. However, the proposition of Neurolaw in everyday practice has raised countless ethical concerns, social issues, and hundreds of new perspectives. But promoting the expanding field of Neurolaw is the attempt to understand the mechanical, behavioral, and structural neuronal function and ability of criminals to investigate the motives/reasoning that drove those criminalistic actions. In this ongoing research, comes the ethical debates as to define court justifications such as criminal responsibility and consequences. Neurolaw presents the opportunity to expand the work and establishments made in court to prove the long-recorded history of relevancy of neuroscience achievement in legal studies going forward.
In the paper, “Law and Neuroscience” by Dr. Jones, and his colleagues, they set out to determine and shape the groundwork upon which Neurolaw is built. It was explained that neuroscience can further help court individuals to make better decisions to improve the fairness and effectiveness of the criminal justice system. Per the article, it may also improve the predictions made of an individual’s choices from underlying nonpathological behaviors and mental illnesses. In the article, the authors depict that recent studies have shown and proven that the process of assigning blame and consequences for a crime, to a defendant with an underlying mental illness may exacerbate the effects of their actions. The authors of this study use court cases to provide contextual evidence and aid neuroscience in the use of legal decision-making. However, one study that was used within the paper that outlined the concerns about the ability of neuroscience to provide sequential evidence to a defendant, was the case of New York v. Herbert Weinstein, where a man murdered his wife in a fit of violent rage. The man has no significant history of any mental disorder, although neuroimaging revealed a large arachnoid cyst pressing into his prefrontal cortex. With this evidence, the court decided that the defendant had impaired self-control and thus, this evidence was used to aid the legal decision making in court. The use of neuroscience in court may be the deciding factor that makes it possible to enforce and interpret the actions of defendants, or it may prevent the process already in place in the criminal justice system. All results that are found within this every-growing field are up to the neuroscientists and legal representatives that are associated with each case.
In the paper, “Neuroscience Has the Power to Change the Criminal Justice System” by Dr. Altimus, they set out to understand and depict modern-day issues faced by policy-makers and how the field of neuroscience to better the extended process of legal decision making within the criminal justice system. This process includes the understanding of underlying biological systems, factors, influences, and other complex subcategories that the justice system must deal with. Per the author, this research is to funnel ways to better the future of legal justices and policies to address the behavioral issues associated with mental health problems that are relevant to neuroscience. The author of this paper focused on a plethora of questions about the social aspects and childhood environments of not only defendants but also those working in the legal system. It was deducted from the research made by Dr. Altimus that neuroscience research can be directly applied to policies in criminal justice in similar or even exact ways that neuroscience is used in clinical psychiatry. This fact was used by the idea that the isolation of defendants deeply, negatively affects their mental health and thus affects their neural development, trauma, and stress impact decision-making. Per the article, in recent studies, neuroscience researchers have mapped circuits and changes that are commonly involved in addiction, violence, and other tendencies that are predicted to lead to an increased likelihood of criminal actions. To aid the process of discovering more, it was proposed by the author that there must be more work done between criminal justice institutions, as well as social service agencies. The author calls for neuroscientists to reach beyond laboratories to positively impact the legal system.
Both articles investigate the underlying possibility and aid that neuroscience may have on the criminal justice system. However, with the field of neurolaw, comes many ethical debates on its use and application towards complex individual cases. With the use of neuroscience in law, both articles depict the benefit of legal decision making, and understanding the biological mechanisms behind the actions of defendants who present with a neurological disease or mental illness. Additionally, both articles examine the decisions made behind the assigning of consequences and responsibility. In all, neuroscience and criminology are fields that are always developing, and their relation stands tall by years of evidence that can benefit all that are in the justice system.
Works cited:
1. 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
2. Altimus CM. Neuroscience Has the Power to Change the Criminal Justice System. eNeuro. 2017 Jan 27;3(6):ENEURO.0362-16.2016. doi: 10.1523/ENEURO.0362-16.2016. PMID: 28144620; PMCID: PMC5269646.
No comments:
Post a Comment