The effects of neuroimaging and brain injury on insanity defenses

Abstract

Although neurological evidence is used with increasing frequency in criminal trials, there is limited research examining the effects that this evidence has on juror decision-making in insanity trials. Participants (396) were presented with a case summary and psychological testimony and asked to render either a verdict of guilty or not guilty by reason of insanity in a 2 (psychosis or psychopathy) x (presence or absence of an MRI indicating a brain lesion) x (presence or absence of testimony describing a car accident that caused injury to the brain) factorial design. Defendants diagnosed with a psychotic disorder, defendants who could demonstrate the existence of a brain lesion via MRI, and defendants who had a history of brain injury were more likely to be found not guilty by reason of insanity than those defendants who did not present any neurological testimony. Participants who reported they were more influenced by the psychological and neurological testimony were almost six times more likely to render a verdict of NGRI than those participants who reported that the psychological and neurological testimony and evidence did not influence their decision regarding verdict.

People consider reliability and cost when verifying their autobiographical memories

“…Jurors are more likely to be swayed by physical (trace) evidence such as shoeprint evidence, for instance, than by eyewitness testimony (Skolnick & Shaw, 2001; see also Ask, Rebelius, & Granhag, 2008). Research also suggests that people find neuroscience explanations persuasive, possibly because such accounts provide evidence of a link between brain activity and behavior (Gurley & Marcus, 2008;Weisberg, Keil, Goodstein, Rawson, & Gray, 2008; see also Michael, Newman, Vuorre, Cumming, & Garry, 2013 for limitations of persuasive neuroscience evidence). Together these studies suggest that people perceive physical evidence to be extremely reliable.…”

Legal responses to neuroscience

“…17,18 Either it mitigates a defendant's sentence because he/she is not held responsible for his/her biological makeup and thus legal responsibility and culpability might be reduced, or such evidence aggravates the sentence because the biological makeup will make the defendant commit further offenses in the future.…”

Forensische psychologie, neurobiologie en preventie: kritische reflectie op nieuwe ontwikkelingen

“…Ook voor de forensische psychologie en psychiatrie en de rechtspraak bestaan verwachtingen ten aanzien van het gebruik van neurobiologische en genetische inzichten (Gurley & Marcus, 2008;Nordstrom e.a., 2011). Met name als er sprake is van ernstig normoverschrijdend gedrag of geweld lijkt het zinvol om te bezien of een probleem in de hersenen een rol speelt.…”

“…Het is daarbij de vraag hoe de perceptie zal zijn van de eventuele (verdere) toevoeging van (neuro)biologische elementen aan beoordelingsprocedures en behandeling in de strafrechtsketen. Studies over de invloed van (hypothetische) neurobiologische of genetische testen in de rechtsgang geven een wisselend beeld omtrent de strafmaat (Aspinwall e.a., 2012;Gurley & Marcus, 2008;Schweitzer & Saks, 2011). Maar het gevaar is dat de uitkomsten schromelijk worden overschat.…”