Welcome to the forum thread for "Neurolaw: The New Frontier," the Justice Talking show for the week of January 14 - 21, 2007.

Some lawyers are citing brain defects to prove that their clients aren’t responsible for criminal behavior. In recent years, this neuroscientific evidence has been increasingly used in our courtrooms. But some scientists argue that brain imaging is still new and unreliable, while others question whether juries should be ruling on what counts as a "defective" brain. As neurolaw grows in influence, it could potentially revolutionize our notions of guilt and punishment as criminals say "my brain made me do it." And in the not-so-distant future, we might be just a couple brains scans away from perfectly detecting lies and predicting criminal behavior. Tune in as we examine this new frontier of law on this edition of Justice Talking.

Please post your comments on this Justice Talking issue using this thread.

Thanks for your participation!

Laura Sider
Outreach Coordinator

I think this topic is fascinating and important. However there is no way that the technology is proven out. For a case that is 24 years past, can the science say conclusively that the individual has convinced himself( reprogrammed) to the extent that a brain "fingerprint" can not identify the signatures that would have been present immediately after the incident.  I am not saying that this particular case should have been overturned or not. What I am saying is no peer reviewed science would accept the use of the technology to determine the state of mind that was relevant ONLY 24 years ago. We do know that peoples perceptions, beliefs and memories do change. The fact that the technology didn't exist 24 years ago shows that there is no science that can determine changes over a 24 year span. This should not have been allowed in the legal system for past cases. The dangerous precedent needs to be readdressed.

 

Thanks

Ken

Retrospective analysis of the status of a person's brain long ago may indeed be a problem.

A critical question needs to be asked:  Does the accused understand the proceedings as the trial proceeds? 

Determination of guilt or innocence on the basis of factual evidence most likely will have to be very separate from the penalty phase of a trial.

 Any statement or implication that "brain fingerprinting" had any impact upon the Harrington decisions is incorrect. The Supreme Court did NOT consider that issue in its ruling.  The Court stated: “Because the scientific testing evidence is not necessary to a resolution of this appeal, we give it no further consideration.”  That is also true in the ruling by the lower, District Court.  That court simply listened to the testimony and then, in its ruling, totally disregarded it.  The end legal result is that this evidence was NOT accepted in any manner as persuasive. 

 

Hello,

As a neuroscientist & psychology professor I am compelled to weigh in on this fascinating subject.  I wrote a longer response, but this system seems to have a tendency to log people out if we get carried away in our writing so I'll keep this one short.

I feel like although most of the critical concepts were raised and discussed in tonight's show (5/15/08, WCMU Mount Pleasant) one of the aspects that seemed far too implicit or rather un-emphasized was the fact that our brains are so very malleable.  When we change our brain activity so constantly, it is difficult to know what activity is ever telling of any bigger picture issue.  Responsibility is hidden in that.  This can be seen in a simple example of a person who develops a habit of suppressing the little inner voice that says "you shouldn't do that, cause that's wrong."  Eventually, the voice shuts down and so might the tendency to suppress taboo behaviors.  However such a person would be, in the greater scheme, entirely responsible for their actions.

On many occasions our brains are changed due to practice.  Telling the difference between practiced change and change due to disrupted development, trauma, or disease, would challenge even the most savvy fMRI or SPECT reader.  I wonder, however, whether we might use brain scanning technology to help those who may actually want to improve themselves do so more effectively, as was suggested on the program.

Michael