Neuroscientific evidence in the courtroom: a review

Abstract

The use of neuroscience in the courtroom can be traced back to the early twentieth century. However, the use of neuroscientific evidence in criminal proceedings has increased significantly over the last two decades. This rapid increase has raised questions, among the media as well as the legal and scientific communities, regarding the effects that such evidence could have on legal decision makers. In this article, we first outline the history of neuroscientific evidence in courtrooms and then we provide a review of recent research investigating the effects of neuroscientific evidence on decision-making broadly, and on legal decisions specifically. In the latter case, we review studies that measure the effect of neuroscientific evidence (both imaging and nonimaging) on verdicts, sentencing recommendations, and beliefs of mock jurors and judges presented with a criminal case. Overall, the reviewed studies suggest mitigating effects of neuroscientific evidence on some legal decisions (e.g., the death penalty). Furthermore, factors such as mental disorder diagnoses and perceived dangerousness might moderate the mitigating effect of such evidence. Importantly, neuroscientific evidence that includes images of the brain does not appear to have an especially persuasive effect (compared with other neuroscientific evidence that does not include an image). Future directions for research are discussed, with a specific call for studies that vary defendant characteristics, the nature of the crime, and a juror's perception of the defendant, in order to better understand the roles of moderating factors and cognitive mediators of persuasion.

Meta-analytic connectivity modelling of deception-related brain regions

“…Neuroimaging has been used in legal proceedings since the early twentieth century, with use of electroencephalography (EEG) appearing in the 1940s, computed tomography (CT) appearing in 1981, positron emission tomography (PET) appearing in 1992, and fMRI not long after [ 54 ]. Over the last two decades alone, the use of neuroscientific evidence in general and neuroimaging-based evidence specifically has increased tremendously in the United States [ 54 ]. Jones [ 55 ] has identified seven categories for the applications of neuroscience to the legal setting: buttressing, detecting, sorting, challenging, intervening, explaining, and predicting.…”

Meta-analytic connectivity modelling of deception-related brain regions

“…Neuroimaging has been used in legal proceedings since the early twentieth century, with use of electroencephalography (EEG) appearing in the 1940s, computed tomography (CT) appearing in 1981, positron emission tomography (PET) appearing in 1992, and fMRI not long after [52]. Over the last two decades alone, the use of neuroscientific evidence in general and neuroimaging-based evidence specifically has increased tremendously in the United States [52]. Jones [53] has identified seven categories for the applications of neuroscience to the legal setting: buttressing, detecting, sorting, challenging, intervening, explaining, and predicting.…”

The effect of neuroscientific evidence on sentencing depends on how one conceives of reasons for incarceration

“…For example, it is estimated that only 20% of defendants achieve a favorable outcome after using neuroscience evidence in their defense [1]. Consistent with what has been observed in real-world court settings, empirical findings on the effect of neuroscientific evidence on legal decisions also have been mixed (see [12] for a review; [13]).…”