Neuroscience in the Courtroom

     On Thursday, September 26, 2013, Dr. Gur and Dr. Denno spoke about neuroscience and its use, or lack thereof, in the courtroom. Dr. Gur utilized most of his talk by giving a summarization of how the brain functions. He emphasized the point that criminals with brain damage could not be put to the death penalty for their crimes because their brain does not function "normally."
     He also mentioned how people did not believe in bringing neuroscience into the courtroom because it may appear that the jury or judge only believes the neuroscience evidence because they do not know better to deny the evidence. Dr. Denno discussed how attorneys did not want to learn about neuroscience which is the reason they do not use it more often in the courtroom.
     This idea of attorneys not wanting to branch out to try and understand neuroscience reminds me of a trip I took with Psi Beta (my community college's honor society in psychology) last April. We went to the Elgin Mental Health Center and watched two trials of patients who both had schizo-effective disorder. The treating psychiatrist wanted to prescribe a list of drugs to be used on the patients. However, both patients insisted they did not need the drugs and their public defendants did them no justice.
     The public defendants were professional, but they knew nothing about medicine. The lawyers stumbled when saying the name of the disorder and when describing the patients' behavior. They could barely make out the names of the dozens of medications which were being considered by the judge to be given to the patients. The lack of knowledge they had about the patients and what their circumstances were was disruptive and frankly gave the judge no choice but to side with the psychiatrist.
     While lawyers, the judge, and the jury do not have to, in any means, be experts in the field of neuroscience and psychology, it does not help the patient or the client if they know nothing at all. The point that both Dr. Gur and Dr. Denno made about people not utilizing neuroscience evidence in the courtroom simply because of a lack of understanding of it does not seem acceptable or fair for that person they represent.
     Neuroscience should not, by any means, be the only source of evidence utilized in the courtroom, but it is a great tool to use in helping to understand what would cause someone to do wrong things. However, a lack of knowledge of how to properly utilize these findings will not help anyone. I believe that lawyers, whose case would benefit from the use of neuroscience evidence for their client, should seek out the help of psychology professionals to gain an understanding.