Neuroscience and the law: philosophical differences and practical constraints.
Controversies surrounding the value of neuroscience as forensic evidence are explored from the perspective of the philosophy of mind, as well as from a practical analysis of the state of the scientific research literature. At a fundamental philosophical level there are profound differences in how law and neuroscience view the issue of criminal responsibility along the continuum from free will to determinism. At a more practical level, significant limitations in the current state of neuroimaging research constrain its ability to inform legal decision-making. Scientifically supported and unsupported forensic applications for brain imaging are discussed, and recommendations for forensic report writing are offered.
Martell
Daniel A
DA
Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, Semel Neuropsychiatric Institute, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, CA, USA. damartell@aol.com
D001921:Brain / Q000098:blood supply / Q000378:metabolism / Q000503:physiopathology*; D002560:Cerebrovascular Circulation / Q000502:physiology; D003416:Criminal Law / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D003657:Decision Making; D003952:Diagnostic Imaging; D007174:Disruptive, Impulse Control, and Conduct Disorders / Q000503:physiopathology / Q000523:psychology; D005554:Forensic Medicine / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D006801:Humans; D007600:Judgment; D009014:Morals; D009488:Neurosciences / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D010684:Philosophy; D049268:Positron-Emission Tomography; D011582:Psychological Theory; D015899:Tomography, Emission-Computed, Single-Photon; D014754:Violence / Q000523:psychology