Neurolaw is a field that combines the many disciplines of neuroscience with the statutes that are meant to be upheld by our country. The interdisciplinary aspect of neuroscience plays a role in law in ways such as explaining addiction, behavior, memory, and neurobiology. Neuroscience findings have been used in cases of both criminal and civil law. For example, the science involving executive function plays an important role in evaluating moral and legal agency. Executive function is responsible for the inhibition of actions, delayed gratification, planning future actions involving other people, and managing the brain’s emotional system. The extent to which a defendant is able to demonstrate executive functions should be taken into consideration when making a decision in court.
In her seminar presentation, philosopher Katrina Sifferd talked about the importance of neuroscience in criminal law specifically, including how mental competency and intent should be taken into consideration in order for a defendant to be found guilty. She emphasized the importance of using neuroscience evidence in addition to evidence typically used in court, such as testimonies and documents. Among the many ways neuroscience is used in court, it’s most often used to buttress or support juror confidence in a conclusion supported by other data. She gave a specific example of a case in which neuroscience was used to defend against chemical castration for repeated sex offenders by explaining its cognitive and physical side effects. In a similar fashion, the article, “Law and Neuroscience”, overviews the beneficial role that neuroscience has in law in hopes of furthering the utilization of neuroscience in the field. They supported this claim with examples of various supreme court cases in which neuroscience research was used to help make an argument. One example, in specific, includes the supreme court case, Miller v Alabama, in which group-based research about impulse control, planning ahead, and risk avoidance helped the court decide that the life sentences in prison without parole are unconstitutional for juvenile offenders.
In the article, “Fetal pain and its relevance to abortion policy”, psychologist T.V. Salomons and neuroscientist G.D. Iannetti discuss the misinterpretation of the evidence used in the supreme court case Dobbs v Jackson which overturned Roe v Wade – the case that protected abortion as a fundamental right. The court argued that fetuses feel pain and was backed by neuroscience evidence that fetuses have nociception – the processing of harmful stimuli in the central and peripheral nervous systems. While this is true, it is not correct to say nociception always comes with a sense of pain since the two are different phenomena. There have been cases where nociception is present but a sensation of pain is not. The authors of this article are not making an argument in support of or against abortion, nor do they claim that the evidence used was wrong. The authors are, however, arguing that the neuroscience evidence used in the case was used to support the argument incorrectly, as the court combined nociception and pain into one.
Neuroscience proves to play a role in supporting evidence in court cases. Katrina Sifferd expands on the several ways neuroscience can be used in law that are outlined in the article, “Law and Neuroscience”. This includes, but is not limited to buttressing conclusions, challenging evidence, and predicting future behavior. Referencing two supreme court cases regarding abortion rights, Solomon and Iannetti show how neuroscience can be used as effective evidence to support an argument in court, but can also be used incorrectly, undermining the credibility of the court or the lawyer. Since there are many facets and intricacies to the field of neuroscience, many questions can arise. For example, what if someone commits a crime while they’re sleepwalking? This brings back Sifferd’s point of considering mental competency and intention. Neuroscience would say that lack of consciousness and malintent makes the defendant innocent. Is it worth having a neuroscientist sit in court cases or to have them hired by law firms to help with work behind the scenes? Neuroscience research is an ever-advancing field with new information coming out all the time. What would happen if neuroscience research helped come to a conclusion in a court case, and then those research findings changed in the future? Neuroscience can lend a supporting hand in law, while also bringing about even more questions and considerations.
References
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
Salomons, T. V., & Iannetti, G. D. (2022). Fetal pain and its relevance to abortion policy. Nature Neuroscience, 25(11), 1396–1398. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-022-01188-1
No comments:
Post a Comment