Brains on Trial

Over the summer, one of my coworkers asked me about my research interests and what I wanted to do with my life after graduation. I explained that I'm interested in the field of neuropsychology and neuroscience, and tentatively want to work within the realm of diagnostics, assessments, and research. Like most people, he said that the field of neuroscience is such a fascinating and burgeoning field that he wanted to learn more about, but it was the second part of his statement that really surprised me.

"I just...wouldn't feel comfortable entering a field where the need for human employees will essentially be eliminated by computer technology in the coming years." I followed with my usual reaction to people when they question my career choices: A side-eye glare, followed by a terse "And why do you think that?" He further elaborated that computer technology and brain scans will absolutely eliminate the need for psychologists in any diagnostic or assessment setting. He used the courtroom as an example: "With brain scanning, the only place you would need an actual person would be when the scans need to be read". He reasoned that the scans will be the determining factor in determining guilt or mitigation if the individual is mentally unfit.

This is the face I make when people question my life choices. Source: Rotten Tomatoes.

I believe that attitudes such as my coworker's are part of the reason why there is such a climate of fear surrounding neuroscience entering the court of law. He clearly does not have any idea how neuroimaging works or how scientific evidence is applied to a court setting. As Dr. Deborah Denno discussed in her lecture "Changing Law's Mind", there are quite a few misconceptions regarding neuroscience in law. First and foremost, using brain scans is NOT a be all, end all in court-room decision making. For example, an fMRI image cannot be the sole factor in determining guilt. fMRI data uses correlations and statistical tests to isolate mental processes. Using brain scans to "prove" someone mentally unfit does not let them off the hook! When properly used, brain imaging data can be used in the mitigation process to lessen a sentence, generally from the death penalty to a lesser, but still substantial penalty. According to Dr. Denno, the idea that neuroscience should not be used in the courtroom is based on misconceptions and fears; furthermore, she stated that she has never seen these misconceptions actually play out when the data is applied correctly. Second, Dr. Denno brought up an incredibly valid point that a lot of the data and evidence currently used in the court systems is far less reliable and unethical. One case she cited let the prosecution bring in the bloody t-shirt of a toddler who was beaten to death, but wouldn't allow any brain scans into the courtroom. What is more manipulative and likely to pull at the jury's heart strings? My guess is the t-shirt would elicit a far greater emotional reaction, and could really implicate the way the jury proceeds with the evidence.

Dr. Gur cites Brian Dugan for a case in which brain scans determined the defendant mentally unfit for the death penalty. In 2009, Dugan plead guilty to the rape and murder of a 10 year old child from the suburbs of Illinois. Source: NPR

However, I am slightly wary of allowing brain scans in the court room, mostly for two reasons. My biggest concern is that neuroscience is very new, and scientists do not know everything about the brain and what influences our behavior. They must take caution using the data, and while I am optimistic that most researchers would take these precautions, there could be undue pressure from the courts or lawyers to make it seem like the evidence is black and white. It's not-there are a variety of factors that can contribute to behavior and pathology. Another relevant concern that I share with both Dr. Denno and Dr. Gur regards the ignorance of science among lawyers and jurors. Not to be that intolerable academic elite that everyone loathes, but I surmise that most lawyers do not have an adequate understanding of neuroimaging to base their arguments-or decisions in the case of jury members-off of. I've taken quite a few neuroscience classes, and I finally feel like I have a decent grasp of what EEGs and fMRIs can tell us (again, I am graduating in the spring). There must be extra precautions taken here so the data can be adequately and accurately explained in everyday terms. Lawyers and scientists must work together to make sure that all evidence is ethical, understandable, and permissible for the court setting.

Source:
Hagerty, Barbara Bradley. "Inside a Psychopath's Brain: The Sentencing Debate". NPR. Npr.org, 30 June 2010. Web. 15 October 2013. <http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128116806>.