Trends in Cognitive Sciences
Forum: Science & SocietyNeuroimages in court: less biasing than feared
References (15)
- et al.
Seeing is believing: the effect of brain images on judgments of scientific reasoning
Cognition
(2008) Neuroimaging and inferential distance
Neuroethics
(2008)The seductive allure of neuroscience explanations
J. Cogn. Neurosci.
(2008)- et al.
The effects of neuroimaging and brain injury on insanity defenses
Behav. Sci. Law
(2008) The influence of fMRI lie detection evidence on juror decision making
Behav. Sci. Law
(2011)Not guilty by reason of neuroimaging: the need for cautionary jury instructions for neuroscience evidence in criminal trials
Vanderbilt J. Entert. Technol. Law
(2010)‘Soft’ science in the courtroom?: The effects of admitting neuroimaging evidence into legal proceedings
Penn Bioeth. J.
(2005)
Cited by (32)
Can neuroscience enlighten the philosophical debate about free will?
2023, NeuropsychologiaNeurolaw: Challenges and limits
2023, Handbook of Clinical NeurologyNeuroscience and everyday life: Facing the translation problem
2018, Brain and CognitionNeuroscience in forensic psychiatry: From responsibility to dangerousness. Ethical and legal implications of using neuroscience for dangerousness assessments
2016, International Journal of Law and PsychiatryCitation Excerpt :Others suggest that the real explanation for the prejudicial nature of neuroscience evidence does not lie in their visual impact, i.e., in the power of image, but in the difference between structural and functional imaging: structural abnormalities are more likely to influence judgments and mitigate punishment decisions than functional abnormalities, as the latter have less causal potency than the structural ones (Choe, 2014). In any case, even though more recent researches suggest that neuroscience is not as biasing as feared (Farah & Hook, 2013; Michael, Newman, Vuorre, Cumming, & Garry, 2013; Roskies, Schweitzer, & Saks, 2013; Schweitzer, Baker, & Risko, 2013; Schweitzer et al., 2011), the prejudicial impact of neuroscientific evidence remains an open empirical question (Gruber & Dickerson, 2012; McCabe, Castel, & Rhodes, 2011; Nadelhoffer et al., 2012) to be examined. One of the difficulties with evidence involving neuroimaging is that any evidentiary use involves the interpretation of the images themselves as well as inferences as to the psychological status of the individual (Eastman & Campbell, 2006).
Neurobiology and crime: A neuro-ethical perspective
2019, Journal of Criminal JusticeCitation Excerpt :It has been argued that neurobiological assessments by experts are sensitive to the ‘pathology bias’, the ‘allegiance effect’ and malingering (Merckelbach & Merckelbach, 2014). Other experts nuance the seductive allure of neuro-images as no inordinate effects are found that go beyond conventional neuroscience expert testimony (Roskies et al., 2013). Recent studies have found either mitigating, aggravating or no overall impact of neurobiological evidence on culpability and criminal sentencing (Berryessa, 2017; de Kogel & Westgeest, 2015; Scurich & Appelbaum, 2016). de Kogel and Westgeest (2015)
Mild traumatic brain injury: Is DTI ready for the courtroom?
2018, International Journal of Law and PsychiatryCitation Excerpt :The legal implications of these findings were instrumental in determining that execution or an automatic sentence of life without the possibility of parole for someone younger than 18 years old, at the time of the crime, violates the 8th Amendment prohibition against “cruel and unusual punishment” (see Roper v. Simmons, 2005; Graham v. Florida, 2011; Miller v. Alabama, 2012). With more and more advances in brain imaging the legal system will face greater pressure to determine which imaging techniques have probative value in a given case and which may be prejudicial or even misleading (see also 2014 articles included in the Hastings Center Report: Farah, 2014; Mayberg, 2014; Parens & Johnston, 2014; Wasserman & Johnston, 2014; as well as Morse, 2006; Patel, Meltzer, Mayberg, & Levine, 2007; Granacher, 2008; Moriarty, 2008; Johnson, Blum, & Giedd, 2009; Roskies, Schweitzer, & Saks, 2013; Meltzer et al., 2014). There are also significant concerns about what can be inferred from brain images, and this area warrants further investigation to elucidate the role of neuroimaging in the courtroom (Appelbaum, 2009).