Neuroscientific Evidence in Courtroom

Neuroscientific Evidence In Courtroom

Neuroscience is a natural science discipline that is focused on the study of neurological processes governing the mind and behavior. The main focus areas involved in the discipline are Psychology, Biology, and Chemistry taking into account evolutionary, anatomical, and physiological processes. The psychodynamic approach by Freud focused on the repressed unconscious being the cause of psychological suffering but with the advent of neuroscience, we now aim to focus on comprehending the neurobiological causes of underlying abnormalities. This has come with its set of a wide range of benefits and threats.

The use of neuroscientific evidence in the courtroom started as early as in 20th century. In the last two decades, neuroscience has made tremendous strides with techniques like neuroimaging, MRI (magnetic resonance imagining), EEG (electroencephalogram), CT (computed tomography). There have been several court cases where neuroscientific evidence has been produced in court to validate the maladjustments in the behavior of the defendant attributed to brain functioning.
This raises questions regarding the reliability of such evidence that may affect the decision-making of the jurors and judges. The questions that arise are if such evidence should be allowed to have a persuasive effect on the juror’s determination of the sentence.
Furthermore, with advancements in technology, it has become impossible to disregard the tangible and concrete evidence that neuroscience is capable of producing.

One important court case that can be mentioned here to understand the controversy of such evidence in court can be traced back to the 1940s when an EEG was first used for defendants with epilepsy and explain behaviors involving violence.

Later the lawyers were advised to understand the relevance of EEG as an evidence in courtroom.
One of the most high profile cases where CT scan was used to prove that the defendant was schizophrenic was the attempted assignation of President Ronald Reagan in 1981. The defendant, John Hinckley was later found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI).

The major concern with neuroscientific evidence is that no one has been able to speak in absolute terms if it is completely accurate in striking a decision for criminal proceedings. The rules and regulations set under the laws take behaviors into consideration. This means that the relevant part is how a person has acted, when he has acted and how it has impacted others and society in general. This is the sole basis of laws being laid down for a nation. Neuroscientific evidence brings our attention to the thoughts governing that behavior. When we are studying brain images of a defendant to prove faulty brain functioning, which has resulted in the behavior for which he is acquitted, we are then focused on the process underlying the behavior not just the behavior. This is the main complication that brings in various ethical issues and concerns over the decision-making of the jurors, influenced by such evidence.
Neuroscience over the years has conceptualized the connection between the human brain and behavior and this connection has become particularly significant in the courtroom. Frontal lobe dysfunction has been linked with moral social misjudgment and impulsivity. Pre-frontal deficits have been linked with anti-social behavior. Psychopathic behavior has been found to be linked with reduced limbic system functioning. Other than this, some medications have also been associated with increased aggression, mania, and agitation. The abnormal brain functionality can be attributed to brain injuries or tumors. Adolescents are not included under the death penalty as their brains are still at the developing stage and various functions related to emotional regulation and decision-making are still being assigned to their respective parts. This can be seen in some behaviors exhibited amongst adolescents like high-risk raking capacity, more influenced by group pressure, and high reward sensitivity.

The first concern is the execution of free will by individuals. This means that the point between the initiation of a violent thought in mind and the actual execution of such behavior holds very little significance.

An example to understand this is a man charged with his wife’s murder. He murdered his wife in rage as he caught her red-handed with another man. Here, we produce evidence to support that the patient is schizophrenic which means he was incompetent to control his decisions and actions.
Another case can be that of a pedophile and it is being argued that he has suffered a certain brain injury that has hampered his moral functioning (controlled by the prefrontal cortex) which has caused him to molest several children. Can the scans and images proving his brain injury be enough for him to be set free under the law? This is where the complications lie.

Another concern is of course the accuracy of the measure that is being produced in the court. Is neuroscientific evidence accurate enough for the jurors to understand the intention, rationality, and responsibility of the accused?

Moreover, in the cases cited above, irrespective of the verdict of the juror, the accused are a major threat to society. Under such circumstances, they cannot be set free. So this may require customizing the verdict for each person. This also means coming up with ways so that the offender does not commit such crimes again. It must include reform, education, and rehabilitation.
Over the years some lawyers have shown increasing interest in brain physiology. This can be because of curiosity or some findings that can help them validate their views. The last decade especially has called for lawyers to become aware of certain methodologies and findings of neuroscience as they have become extremely significant in courtrooms.

Thus far we have witnessed that the significant advances made in the neuroscience of the brain do not yet provide compelling evidence that the study of associated brain parts is sufficient for the normal functioning of these mental states.

The human brain has been known to be extremely malleable. A good example to understand this is that when a person suffers from paralysis of a particular region of the body due to brain injury, the doctors often suggest that sensations may come back in the course of time, this is solely due to the malleable nature of the brain where some other part takes up the function of the injured part. It may not be able to do the job as perfectly as the original part, but it tries to provide a helping hand. Eventually, sensations are reported by the patients over the period of time which may become stagnant or may improve even further with time. Therefore, one single part cannot be associated with a specific mental state. Resultant
behavior is often an output of various processes coordinating with each other.
Secondly, not all people with similar injuries commit crimes. Therefore, evidence to show a specific brain injury is not enough to imply innocence.

This makes neuroscientist evidence vulnerable to abuse and the legal system burdened with responsibility. A major area where neuroscience can help the criminal justice system can be conclusive studies of brain regions and processes linked with the intentions of the defendant. Another one can be the inability of the defendant to produce attentional capacities to attend to the intention, which proves an impairment to making sound judgments. At the moment neuroscience offers some limited conclusions but there is a strong possibility that it will soon aid the discipline of law with a strong empirical foundation.