Neuroscience and Criminology

The two speakers on September 26 Deborah Denno and Dr. Robert Gur focused on introducing neuroscience into the courtroom. However this sparks an interesting debate because there are many misconceptions about neuroscience in the legal system. Some of the most unreliable evidence in a courtroom includes eye witness testimonies. However, most scientific evidence, like finger prints or DNA tests are considered to be the most trusted, reliable, and undisputed evidence in a courtroom.  But neuroscience evidence is not given that much respect in a courtroom. It has a stigma of criminals trying to “get off the hook” because of how this evidence has been treated in the past. Also there is some level of fear of future social deviance from the individuals on trial once they have been labeled a particular way.  

                A recent example of neuroscience being used in a court case is the case about an Italian pediatrician of thirty years named Domenico Mattello who faced a trial for pedophilia. An MRI scan of Mattiello’s brain indicated that there was a tumor about 4 cm in diameter growing in his brain which the lawyers argued was pressing on his brain and altering his behavior. There were testimonies that he was a respected pediatrician for thirty years then his behavior altered drastically. There have been similar situations in other court cases where they had their tumor removed and they no longer had any pedophilic urges. However the relative nature of brain damage makes it hard to generalize and each situation must be analyzed individually. It is also hard to tell how a particular example of brain damage will affect behavior exactly.

                The introduction of neuroscience into the courtroom forces us to question the legitimacy of the defense my brain made me do it. With the strides we are making in neuroscience this is an exciting but debatable question. We are learning more and more about the brain, but for some things we do not know enough for a cause and effect relationship strong enough for court cases. Regardless this evidence is extremely important and should be brought into the courtroom.

Resources

Reuters. (2012, August 29). Neuroscience in court: Is brain to blame for some law breakers?

Scher, Jeremy. (2012, September 24). Tumors and Neuroscience in the Courtroom