The application of neuroscience to law and new legal dilemmas: A systematic review
Abstract
All our moral and legal judgments are centered on our decision making and actions, the same decisions are driven by our brain, so would it be logical to understand the functioning of the brain, through manipulation with sophisticated methods, in order to find answers in a courtroom? Research scholars point out that if it is possible to decipher the neural code of a person, this would allow understanding the functioning of brain activity in various ways, coupled with this such methods when applied to the field of law could radically change the traditional judicial system. However, for many, this method could be considered as an aberration to the fundamental rights of the person. Therefore, the objective of this research is to analyze and interpret the application of neuroscience to law, and its legal dilemmas. In this sense, a qualitative approach was considered for the elaboration of this research. The methodology used was based on the consultation of six databases: Scopus, Web of Science, IEEE, EBSCOhost and Springer. The main findings obtained indicate that the method of neuroscience applied to law through algorithms can trigger and decipher the neural code of the offender, however, it is concluded that there is a large part of researchers who question this method because of its controversial interaction with the human brain.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
1. Stieglitz T. Why Neurotechnologies? About the Purposes, Opportunities and Limitations of Neurotechnologies in Clinical Applications. Neuroethics. 2019; 14(1): 5-16. doi: 10.1007/s12152-019-09406-7
2. White SW, Richey JA, Gracanin D, et al. The Promise of Neurotechnology in Clinical Translational Science. Clinical Psychological Science. 2014; 3(5): 797-815. doi: 10.1177/2167702614549801
3. Greely HT, Illes J. Neuroscience-Based Lie Detection: The Urgent Need for Regulation. American Journal of Law & Medicine. 2007; 33(2-3): 377-431. doi: 10.1177/009885880703300211
4. Altimus CM. Neuroscience Has the Power to Change the Criminal Justice System. eneuro. 2017; 4(1): ENEURO.0362-16.2016. doi: 10.1523/eneuro.0362-16.2016
5. Harris, J., & Lawrence, D. R. Hot Baths and Cold Minds. Cambridge Quarterly Of Healthcare Ethics/CQ. Cambridge Quarterly Of Healthcare Ethics, 24(2), 123-134. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0963180114000425
6. Kiehl KA, Anderson NE, Aharoni E, et al. Age of gray matters: Neuroprediction of recidivism. NeuroImage: Clinical. 2018; 19: 813-823. doi: 10.1016/j.nicl.2018.05.036
7. Bellesi G, Barker ED, Brown L, et al. Pediatric traumatic brain injury and antisocial behavior: are they linked? A systematic review. Brain Injury. 2019; 33(10): 1272-1292. doi: 10.1080/02699052.2019.1641621
8. Greely HT, Farahany NA. Neuroscience and the criminal justice system. Annual Review of Criminology. 2019; 2(1), 451-471. doi: 10.1146/annurev-criminol011518-024433
9. Gimeno H, Tustin K, Selway R, et al. Beyond the Burke-Fahn-Marsden Dystonia Rating Scale: Deep brain stimulation in childhood secondary dystonia. European Journal of Paediatric Neurology. 2012; 16(5): 501-508. doi: 10.1016/j.ejpn.2011.12.014
10. Reeves D, Mills MJ, Billick SB. Brodie Limitations of brain imaging in forensic psychiatry. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2003; 31(1): 89-96.
11. Husted DS, Myers WC, Lui Y. The limited role of neuroimaging in determining criminal liability: an overview and case report. Forensic Sci Int. 2008; 179(1): 9–15. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2008.04.002
12. Rigoni D, Pellegrini S, Mariotti V, et al. How neuroscience and behavioral genetics improve psychiatric assessment: report on a violent murder case. Front Behav Neurosci. 2010; 4(1), 160. doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2010.00160
13. Hughes V. Science in court: Head case. Nature. 2010; 464(7287): 340-342. doi: 10.1038/464340a
14. Sartori G, Scarpazza C, Codognotto S, Pietrini P. An unusual case of acquired pedophilic behavior following compression of orbitofrontal cortex and hypothalamus by a Clivus Chordoma. J Neurol. 2020; 263(7): 1454-1455. doi: 10.1007/s00415-016-8143
15. Scarpazza C, Ferracuti S, Miolla A, et al. The charm of structural neuroimaging in insanity evaluations: guidelines to avoid misinterpretation of the findings. Translational Psychiatry. 2018; 8(1). doi: 10.1038/s41398-018-0274-8
16. Chandler JA, Harrel N, Potkonjak T. Neurolaw today – A systematic review of the recent law and neuroscience literature. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry. 2019; 65: 101341. doi: 10.1016/j.ijlp.2018.04.002
17. Sinnott-Armstrong, W. P. Neurolaw and consciousness detection. Cortex. 2011, 47(10), 1246-1247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2011.04.021
18. Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 561 (2005) (citando a Florida, 2011, 356 U.S. 86, 100– 01 (1958) Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012)
19. Morse SJ. Neuroprediction: New technology, old problems. Bioethica Forum. Published online 2015. doi: 10.24894/bf.2015.08039
20. Ligthart S. Coercive. neuroimaging technologies in criminal law in Europe. Information Technology & Law Series. 2019; 1(3): 83-102. doi: 10.1007/978-94-6265279-8_6
21. Yuste R, Goering S, Arcas BA y, et al. Four ethical priorities for neurotechnologies and AI. Nature. 2017; 551(7679): 159-163. doi: 10.1038/551159a
22. IACHR. Annual Report: Areas in which measures should be taken to give greater effect to human rights, in accordance with the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man and the American Convention on Human Rights. Available online: https://www.cidh.oas.org/anualrep/93span/cap.v.htm (accessed on 7 March 2023).
23. Asgher, U., Ahmad, R., Naseer, N., Ayaz, Y., Khan, M. J., & Amjad, M. K. Assessment and Classification of Mental Workload in the Prefrontal Cortex (PFC) Using Fixed-Value Modified Beer-Lambert Law. IEEE Access, 7, 143250-143262. https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2019.2944965
24. Schleim S. Neurorights in History: A Contemporary Review of José M. R. Delgado’s “Physical Control of the Mind” (1969) and Elliot S. Valenstein’s “Brain Control” (1973). Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 2021; 15. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2021.703308
25. Levy N. Neuroscience, free will, and Responsibility: the current state of play. Springer eBooks. 2014; 2(1): 203-209. doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-4707-4_15
26. Pouget A, Beck JM, Ma WJ, et al. Probabilistic brains: knowns and unknowns. Nature Neuroscience. 2013; 16(9): 1170-1178. doi: 10.1038/nn.3495
27. Gentili PL. Establishing a New Link between Fuzzy Logic, Neuroscience, and Quantum Mechanics through Bayesian Probability: Perspectives in Artificial Intelligence and Unconventional Computing. Molecules. 2021; 26(19): 5987. doi: 10.3390/molecules26195987
28. McCay A, Kennett J. Neuroscience and Punishment: From Theory to Practice. Neuroethics. 2019; 14(S3): 269-280. doi: 10.1007/s12152-018-09394-0
29. Vitacco MJ, Gottfried E, Lilienfeld SO, et al. The Limited Relevance of Neuroimaging in Insanity Evaluations. Neuroethics. 2019; 13(3): 249-260. doi: 10.1007/s12152-019-09421-8
30. Muñoz JM, García-López E, Rusconi E. Editorial: Neurolaw: The Call for Adjusting Theory Based on Scientific Results. Frontiers in Psychology. 2020; 11. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.582302
31. Belger, A., Campbell, A., & Andersen, E. Converging Evidence of Aberrant Neural Synchrony in Schizophrenia. International Journal Of Psychophysiology. 2016, 108, 13-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2016.07.046
32. Pernu TK, Elzein N. From Neuroscience to Law: Bridging the Gap. Frontiers in Psychology. 2020; 11. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01862
33. Rodriguez D, Soto B. Neurosociology and Penal Neuroabolitionism: Rethinking Justice with Neuroscience. Frontiers in Sociology. 2022; 7(2): 15-17. doi: 10.3389/fsoc.2022.814338
34. Rodríguez D, Borbón L. A Critical Perspective on NeuroRights: Comments Regarding Ethics and Law. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 2021; 15. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2021.703121
35. Farinella F, Gulyaeva EE. Human neuro-rights. Revista Quaestio Iuris. 2022; 15(1): 278-299. doi: 10.12957/rqi.2022.64141
36. Brito, R. C., & Soto, N. R.. Neurociencia y Derecho: El impacto del Neuroderecho en la práctica judicial chilena. Revista Chilena de Derecho. 2022, 48(3), 107-129. https://doi.org/10.7764/r.483.5
37. Haarsma, G., Davenport, S., White, D. C., Ormachea, P. A., Sheena, E., & Eagleman, D. M. Assessing risk among correctional community probation populations: Predicting reoffense with mobile Neurocognitive Assessment software. Frontiers In Psychology. 2020 10(1). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02926
38. Vitacco, M. J., Gottfried, E., Lilienfeld, S. O., & Batastini, A. The Limited Relevance of Neuroimaging in Insanity Evaluations. Neuroethics. 2019, 13(3), 249-260. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-019-09421-8
39. Asamizuya T, Saito H, Higuchi R, et al. Effective connectivity and criminal sentencing decisions: dynamic causal models in laypersons and legal experts. Cerebral Cortex. 2022; 32(19): 4304-4316. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhab484
40. Ienca, M., & Andorno, R. Towards new human rights in the age of neuroscience and neurotechnology. Life Sciences, Society And Policy. 2017, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40504-017-0050-1
41. Gkotsi GM, Gasser J. Neuroscience in forensic psychiatry: From responsibility to dangerousness. Ethical and legal implications of using neuroscience for dangerousness assessments. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry. 2016; 46: 58-67. doi: 10.1016/j.ijlp.2016.02.030
42. Shenton ME, Price BH, Levin L, et al. Mild traumatic brain injury: Is DTI ready for the courtroom? International Journal of Law and Psychiatry. 2018; 61: 50-63. doi: 10.1016/j.ijlp.2018.09.002
43. García-López E, Mercurio E, Nijdam-Jones A, et al. Neurolaw in Latin America: Current Status and Challenges. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health. 2019; 18(3): 260-280. doi: 10.1080/14999013.2018.1552634
44. Arun V, Kafaltiya. A Review of Neurolaw and its Contribution to the Judiciary. 2022; 3(1), 15-17.
45. Cunningham WA, Preacher KJ, Banaji MR. Implicit Attitude Measures: Consistency, Stability, and Convergent Validity. Psychological Science. 2001; 12(2): 163-170. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.00328
46. Capraro L. Criminal procedure issues. En Springer eBooks. 2016; 11(1): 213-244. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-41441-6_7
47. Sartori G, Orrù G, Scarpazza C. The Methodology of Forensic Neuroscience. En Springer eBooks. 2020; 453-473. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-38840-9_22
48. Tortora L, Meynen G, Bijlsma J, et al. Neuroprediction and A.I. in Forensic Psychiatry and Criminal Justice: A Neurolaw Perspective. Frontiers in Psychology. 2020; 11. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00220
49. N. E., Llamas, & J. Á, Marinaro. Neurolaw: adaptability of human rights law in relation to new neurotechnologies and proposals for its extension. Scio, (2021) (21), 83-111. https://doi.org/10.46583/scio_2021.21.825
50. Anderson NE, Kiehl KA. Re-wiring Guilt: How Advancing Neuroscience Encourages Strategic Interventions over Retributive Justice. Frontiers in Psychology. 2020; 1(3): 1-11. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00390
51. Gkotsi GM, Gasser J, Moulin V. Neuroimaging in criminal trials and the role of psychiatrists expert witnesses: A case study. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry. 2019; 65: 101359. doi: 10.1016/j.ijlp.2018.05.007
52. García-López, E., Mercurio, E., Nijdam-Jones, A., Morales, L. A., & Rosenfeld, B. Neurolaw in Latin America: Current Status and Challenges. International Journal Of Forensic Mental Health. 2019, 18(3), 260-280. https://doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2018.1552634
53. Llamas NE, Marinaro JÁ. Neurolaw: adaptability of human rights law in relation to new neurotechnologies and proposals for its extension. Scio. 2021; (21): 83-111. doi: 10.46583/scio_2021.21.825
54. Moore M. Freedom of thought at the ethical frontier of law & science, Ethics & Behavior. 2021; 32(6): 510-531. doi: 10.1080/10508422.2021.1928500
DOI: https://doi.org/10.32629/jai.v7i5.1583
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2024 Hernán Yonathan Barragán-Huamán
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/