Neuroscience research is widely applicable to diverse fields of study, enabling partnerships with computer science, medicine, linguistics, and even law. Although the concept of neurolaw is relatively new, its influence proves to be significant in the courtroom. The two seemingly incompatible areas work together when making inferences about the behavior that motivates a person involved in a legal case. Neuroscientific evidence can aid legal scholars in determining more about a person's mental state, effects of addiction, and their memory, essentially deciphering the extent of a brain's dysfunction and possibly excusing that person of criminal responsibility.
In the research article from Katrina Sifferd, the authors discuss the inevitable interconnectedness of law and neuroscience. Sifferd highlights that neuroscientific evidence can aid law in seven ways- buttressing, challenging, detecting, sorting, intervening, explaining, and predicting. However, the impact of neuroscientific evidence to law is individual to each legal case. For example, this article analyzes New York v. Herbert Weinstein, a case where a man with no history of mental illness brutally strangled his wife and threw her body out the window. Neuroimaging revealed that he had a large cyst pressing up against his prefrontal cortex, a brain region responsible for impulse control, managing one's emotions, and a wide variety of other executive functions. The defense was able to use this as evidence to suggest impaired self control, mitigating his sentence. This case demonstrates how it is incredibly informative to test the physical state of the brain because it can help determine whether that person was mentally fit during the crime. Upon neuroimaging, the legal system was able to better understand the man's psychological condition and make an informed decision on his sentence.
In another article, "The brain, the criminal, and the courts", Eryn Brown explains how only starting in the early twentieth century did courts acknowledge how cognitive deficits could affect criminal behavior. And according to a graph provided, the number of judicial opinions influenced by neuroscientific evidence is steadily increasing. Brown recounts a specific case from 42 years ago- John W. Hinckley Jr. who shot President Ronald Reagan and three others. He had a history of behavioral problems and upon introducing a CAT scan, they found that he had an atrophied brain. This is common among people with schizophrenia. Although the judge was still skeptical, the jury was convinced to find Hinckley not responsible by reason of insanity. Since this case, there have been many advancements in neuroscience such as improvements in MRIs and fMRIs that allow for even more accurate brain imaging and a better look at mental disorders. This case also shows how neuroscience and law can work hand in hand.
Both articles provide specific cases in which neuroscientific evidence influenced law, essentially helping to inform the jury on the psychological conditions of the defendants. Because there are positive and negative implications to using neuroscience in court, the most important question to consider is whether the evidence is legally relevant. One concern that both Brown and Sifferd allude to is the fact that brain scans and testing done after the crime might not accurately reflect the defendant's motivations and behavior at the time of the crime. However, the future of neuroscience in court is not only prevalent, but it is also very promising. Neuroscientists are not only working on neuroimaging and testing for legal cases, but they are also doing research on the biological factors of recidivism, studying the concept of mental age for juvenile justice reform, and more.
Resources:
Brown, E. (2019, August 30). The brain, the criminal and the Courts - Knowable Magazine. The brain, the criminal, and the courts. https://knowablemagazine.org/article/mind/2019/neuroscience-criminal-justice
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
No comments:
Post a Comment