As we learn more and more about how the human brain works, more and more questions come into play regarding an individual’s culpability for actions that may have been caused or influenced by a brain based medical condition. In an article titled “Law and Neuroscience” by Jones et al., published in 2013, the authors attempt to break down the important factors of what was at the time, and by some considerations still is, a budding field. Articles like this one began to open the conversation around law, neuroscience, their overlap, and the implications thereof, paving the way for expanded discussion such as what is seen in the 2019 article “Neuroimaging and Neurolaw: Drawing the Future of Aging” by Tigano et al. In this article, the researchers discuss the implication that improvement of understanding of the effects of aging on the brain and improvements in technology for brain scanning have on laws regarding legal capacity.
The article “Law and Neuroscience” covers a lot of ground in the ways that Neuroscience may be beneficial towards our legal system, including but not limited to; buttressing, challenging other evidence, detection of legally relevant facts, providing criterion for who may respond to certain treatments, and predictions of future behaviors. While this article does largely focus on the effects of neuroscience on the judgement of criminal responsibility, it also breaks down several other applications. In the case of the judgement and prediction of future behaviors, the article suggests that the same neuroscience that allows us to better understand the effects and progression of diseases like Alzheimer's can give us an idea of who may or may not be diagnosed with this and similar diseases as well as an ability to predict age of onset.
In the article by Tigano et al., the authors discuss the application of neuroscience within the context of age-related brain cognitive diseases (ABCDs) and legal capacities. This article takes a preventative approach to crime occurrences due to ABCDs by exploring possible testing that could be added to the process of renewal for licensing of risked behaviors such as the operation of a motor vehicle. The authors suggest that at a certain age, instead of declaring culpability and capability in a similar way to how such matters are applied to minors, part of reapplication for things like a driver’s license could include cognitive functional tests to prove sufficient capability. Results of such testing besides the potential revocation of a license could potentially include requirements similar to that of a learner (i.e. driving only within specific time periods and accompanied by another licensed driver).
While both of these articles discuss possible applications of neuroscience in a legal sense, the two investigate different aspects of these cases. While the article by Jones et al. covers many ways that neuroscience can be applied once a case reaches the courtroom, the article by Tigano et al. covers ways that changes in the legal system for several processes could help to prevent the instances where cases like these occur in the courtroom in the first place. The differences in these niches of the overall topic of neurolaw truly speaks to the wide potential reach of neuroscience in the courtroom.
References:
Jones, O. D., Marois, R., Farah, M. J., & Greely, H. T. (n.d.). Law and neuroscience. The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24198354/
Tigano, V., Cascini, G. L., Sanchez-Castañeda, C., Péran, P., & Sabatini, U. (2019, April 8). Neuroimaging and neurolaw: Drawing the future of Aging. Frontiers in endocrinology. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6463811/
No comments:
Post a Comment