What difference do brain images make in US criminal trials?

Abstract

One of the early concerns regarding the use of neuroscience data in criminal trials is that even if the brain images are ambiguous or inconclusive, they still might influence a jury in virtue of the fact that they appear easy to understand. By appearing visually simple, even though they are really statistically constructed maps with a host of assumptions built into them, a lay jury or a judge might take brain scans to be more reliable or relevant than they actually are. Should courts exclude brain scans for being more prejudicial than probative? Herein, we rehearse a brief history of brain scans admitted into criminal trials in the United States, then describe the results of a recent analysis of appellate court decisions that referenced 1 or more brain scans in the judicial decision. In particular, we aim to explain how courts use neuroscience imaging data: Do they interpret the data correctly? Does it seem that scans play an oversized role in judicial decision-making? And have they changed how criminal defendants are judged? It is our hope that in answering these questions, clinicians and defence attorneys will be able to make better informed decisions regarding about how to manage those incarcerated.

Reconciling the opposing effects of neurobiological evidence on criminal sentencing judgments

“…For instance, Berryessa [16] found that potential jurors given evidence of biological risk factors rated the defendant as less responsible for their acts and more likely to commit future crimes compared to those not given biological risk factor information. This potential of biological evidence to cut both ways in a defendant’s case has been described as a double-edged sword [7, 17–19]. If admission of such evidence carries this risk, it has important implications for how legal parties present evidence, how judges and jurors evaluate that evidence, and more broadly how human beings make moral judgments.…”

Limitations Using Neuroimaging to Reconstruct Mental State After a Crime

“…This approach is more consistent with mitigation than insanity. 39 A final consideration of concerns about objectivity center around the innovation that remains with neuroimaging and the iterative nature of science regarding this technology. No finding highlights problematic correlations that can arise in scanning without objective interpretation more than when functional activity was found during scans performed on a deceased salmon that clearly had no functional activity.…”

Editorial introduction: The implications of translational neuroscience for clinical practice and its evaluation

“…How do we perform the imperative of the normative responsibility (and Law is normative by definition) when providing statements grounded on entirely subjective evaluation (interviews and/or self‐assessments)? In answer to these questions, Hardcastle and Lamb's contribution to the Special Section provides many valuable insights . Finally, the last Century has witnessed the adoption of an outdated dichotomy, as defined in the neo‐Kantian tradition, and attributed to the German philosopher Wilhelm Windelband .…”