Neuroscience
in the courtroom: too early, too late, or just in time
Dr. Rubin C. Robert Gur, a psychologist in a department of
psychiatry, dissected the reasons why neuroscience has been a struggle to be
seen as reliable evidence in a court room. Dr. Gur, himself, is a
psychologist that does partake in trial hearings where neuroscience is
applicable. Dr. Gur believes that the brain equals the mind and
therefore goes against Morse’s infamous thought that “Brains don’t kill people,
people kill people.” Dr. Gur also spoke of the Head Case as an
example of how neuroscience can be used in court. The case made big
news in Chicago in 2010 and was published in Natural. It
was the story of Brian Dugan, who received life in prison, as opposed to the
death penalty, because a simple MRI revealed that he had psychopathy. Dr.
Gur defended his theory of brain equals the mind when he poked a man’s brain,
the man would physically act accordingly to where he was being poked. Dr.
Gur later asked the patient why he had raised up his right arm or kicked his left
leg and the patient responded with because he “just felt like it.” This
shows that the brain is why we act the way we do and don’t actually have that
much control over our actions. This cascades back to the idea that
maybe these criminals don’t mean to do things, but just do them because their
brain tells them to. But this brings us back to the question, does
that mean it is or isn’t their fault? Dr. Gur emphasized that
behavior is a product of brain processes. Neuroanatomy and
neurophysiology interact and behavior is their final product. And
anatomy and physiology are created by our genes, therefore understanding
genomics will help us understand how brain has evolved and explain
behavior. Dr. Gur wrapped about our deep, see sawing thoughts with
the idea that brains kill people is paradoxical because we are our
brains. He then proceeded to go over the anatomy of a brain, being
it is far more complex than our hearts, which in his terms, are nothing more,
but simple pumps. Dr. Gur also explained some tools that
neuroscientists use to study the brain. One was the MRI, which uses
resonance to measure the minute rattles in our brain parts, the smaller parts
moving faster, and larger parts moving smaller. This combines with
density images to create a picture. Dr. Gur also spoke of fMRIs, which use the
bold effect, due to blood oxygenation level dependence. Through
fMRIs, many sex differences have been discovered, for example females do better
in emotion and emotion recognition than do males. He also mentioned
another court case, which of a man whose last name was Robertson, who was set
for death penalty, but was saved due to neuroscientists, and brain imaging,
discovering that he had incredibly reduced brain volume in his right hemisphere
and a problem with his corpus callosum. He had missing fiber tracts,
and was suspected to have serious head injuries.
Changing’s
Law’s Mind
Deborah Denno, a law professor, opened up with presentation with
the quote “Misconceptions about past applications and unfounded fears for
future abuse lead to unnecessary constraints on how the legal system treats
neuroscience evidence today.” One case she spoke about that
demonstrated this very stubbornness to accept neuroscience is that of Hoskins
and State, where a PET scan of Hoskins, a rapist, remained up in the air for
two decades, due to people trying to keep it unqualified as evidence. Denno
explained that in capital case where brain scan are treated as mitigating
(should one die or not die) evidence for cases where there is a level of
capability. The defense offers the evidence and the next step would
be the prosecution possibly objecting. This might be due to the
unfounded fears of using neuro-evidence. There is little indication
that it can be used to get defendants off the hook, or as aggravating evidence
of future dangerousness, but those are the two major stigmas associated with it
as described by Denno. Denno broke down some definitions for
us. Neuroscience, she explained, is the “brain of the life sciences
that studies the brain and the nervous system” and cognitive neuroscience
studies motor functions, language, higher cognitive functions, emotions, and
consciousness. Denno gave a thorough explanation of the “heat and
debate” of the matter, as she puts it, but going over a couple of key
points. The first being historic abuses, such as when immoral, and
inhuman medical testing was done on Holocaust prisoners. She also
humbly admitted there is also ignorance of science among lawyers, and as matter
of fact, ignorance of law among scientists. Also among the
discourse, is a double edged sword which goes back to the theory that evidence
can be used against the witness to say a criminal will commit a crime again,
but paradoxical to that is that the brain abnormality was use to explain the
behavior. There is also undue influence on juries. Denno
also explained, what she called, the “Christmas tree effect” where
oversimplification in height overrides the potential of neuroscience evidence
being used in court. For example, brain scans aren't as influential
in stirring the jurors to understand that a criminal killed a 6 month old baby
due to his brain anatomy, when a lawyer is presenting to them the poor baby’s
blood soaked t-shirt. Denno has also done research on how
neuroscience has been used in court rooms. She has discovered
that from 1992 to 2012, 850 criminal cases have used it. Most of it
had been applied in capital cases, 90% as mitigation evidence. She
found that it was not commonly introduced by the state and that it is not seen
as reliable quite yet, even when there are more flaws sometimes in other types
of evidence, such as eye witness testimony.
In recent news, neuro-imaging, is being used as evidence in a
court room, but it is not always receiving the response it should be receiving as
Denno, Dr. Gur, and many educated neuroscientists and lawyers believe it should
be. One court case demonstrating this hesitance
towards acceptance is South Carolina vs. Stanko. Stanko had killed two people and raped a
teenager girl. His PET scan clearly
showed that he had a defect in his reasoning ability due to a two different
incidents. A psychiatric expert
testified that Stanko had brain dysfunction, anti-social personality disorder
(psychopathy) and couldn’t technically tell the difference between right verses
wrong because his brain wasn’t actually processing the events. The jury rejected the insanity defense and
sentenced him to death, but his case is currently on appeal as the court waits
for more scans. Hopefully, they take the
neuroimaging as serious as it should be taken when they make their decision.
Harmanci, R. (2008). Some key
court cases involving neuroscience. SFGate,
Retrieved from http://www.sfgate.com/science/article/Some-key-court-cases-involving-neuroscience-3190309.php
No comments:
Post a Comment