opinion@dailylobo.com
Controversial evidence from neuroscience is pushing our legal system to reconsider what compels people to commit heinous crimes. The criminal justice system has historically been philosophical in nature, shaped by the prevailing values in society.
However, today we’re offered an unprecedented glimpse into the source of human behavior: the brain. Neuroimaging techniques, such as functional magnetic resonance imaging and electroencephalography afford us real-time recording of a person’s brain activity.
But what does this information reveal? Prior studies associate certain brain structures and patterns of function with mental disorders ranging from psychopathy to drug addiction.
So, have scientists pinpointed how the brain influences people to misbehave?
Not precisely. But according to Nita Farahany, Duke University Professor of Law and member of the presidential bioethics committee, that’s not halting the rapid emergence of neuroscience data being used as evidence in U.S. courtrooms.
This past Monday, I joined thousands of neuroscientists to hear Farahany’s keynote lecture on the state of ‘neurolaw’ at the annual Society for Neuroscience meeting in San Diego.
She cited that about 5 percent of homicide cases in the United States involve neuroscience — and that figure is growing.
Generally, lawyers will use brain scans or neuropsychological evaluations to argue that their clients are biologically inclined to act violently, or are mentally incapable of understanding the gravity of their actions.
It’s thrilling that neuroscience is being valued outside the lab for what it can tell us about human nature. However, any neuroscientist will caution you that the science is still developing.
While we do know that certain phenomena, such as frontal lobe brain lesions, are involved in impaired brain function, it’s difficult to determine from a brain scan that an individual who displays a certain neurological disruption is definitively less responsible for her actions.
And let’s also not forget that correlation is not necessarily causation. Using findings from population-based studies to describe one individual’s behavior is flimsy evidence, but Farahany points out that it nevertheless holds weight in court.
When successful, brain scan evidence leads to reduced sentences or sometimes even acquittal for the defendant.
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
While neuroscience offers a wealth of crucial information about behavior, its hasty appearance in the courtroom raises concerns.
Highly technical neuroscience evidence is often presented to jurors who generally lack the scientific background necessary to understand the implications and limitations of the information being presented to them.
How can a nonscientific member of the public decide whether one expert who argues for a defendant’s impaired judgment is more or less credible than another expert arguing just the opposite? When highly disputable data is stretched for use in trial, jurors may end up being taken advantage of.
Even with its limitations, brain scan data does hold immense meaning. But in order for neuroscience to maintain validity in the courtroom, there must be a concerted effort to educate juries and judges on the appropriate interpretation of the data.
And even so, science alone does not prepare us for the ethical issues new discoveries can impose. We now have incredible 21st century scientific technology, but has our justice system caught up?
Currently, there is limited efficacy in attempts to rehabilitate criminals with mental illness. Although in reality illness exists as a spectrum, individuals must be deemed 100 percent incompetent in order to legally plea insanity and receive inpatient care.
Perhaps if neurolaw moves us towards understanding some unintentional, biological foundations of certain criminal behaviors, we can learn to prioritize prevention and rehabilitation over retribution.
In fact, emerging information on the susceptibility of developing brains is shifting legal mandates on how we sentence criminal juveniles.
In 2012, the Supreme Court maintained in Miller v. Alabama that states can’t impose mandatory life-without-parole sentences for juvenile homicide offenders. The court cited brain research suggesting that developmentally immature juveniles may be less culpable for their actions than adults.
Some neurolaw experts also stand behind an active role of science in the restructuring of national drug policy. David Eagleman, Director of the Initiative on Neuroscience and the Law at Baylor College of Medicine and an Albuquerque native, writes on his blog that “dealing with drug addiction through rehabilitation is a more humane and cost effective idea than mass incarceration of the addicted.”
The coupling of neuroscience and law allows us to update our ethical system to understand that bad behavior isn’t always bad intention. This does not mean letting criminal perpetrators ‘off the hook,’ but rather a socially conscious effort to develop methods of rehabilitation focused on fixing behavioral problems at their source.
In her lecture, Farahany emphasized that neurolaw is active and on the rise, whether we are ready for it or not. As such, scientists, legal professionals, and the public must work together towards educating our society on the benefits and challenges of cutting-edge human brain research.
