Whose Fault?

Talk: Neuroscience in the Courtroom

                The first speaker, Dr. Robert C. Gur argues in defense of neuroscience in the courtroom.  He acknowledges that ome people believe that introducing the field into the courtroom is a dangerous "distortion of science" (Mayberg).  Science, and this case neuroscience, become tractable tools. It loses its purpose, or rather gains a new one in the legal system.  Another argument centers around the age old debate over mind versus brain.  Morse, an affiliate at the University of Pennsylvania Law school believes that " brains don't kill people, people kill people". 

                Gur on the other hand, supports the notion that the brain equals the mind.  To illustrate the complex relationship, there was an experiment in which a doctor poked certain parts of a subject's brain.  The subject acted according to the region of the brain that was manipulated.  Ironically, the patient always attributed the evoked actions to their own free will.  The objective of neuroscience in the courtroom is to better understand criminal behavior as more than just an act of free will.

                The second speaker, law professor Deborah Denno, sheds light on the current use of neuroscience in the courtroom.  Currently, neuroscientific data is typically disregarded by the court.  An example of such is illustrated the in the case Hoskins v. State.  Hoskins, a rapist sought a PET scan to evaluate his mental condition.  This is no trivial matter, given that the prosecution sought the death penalty.  The trial judge denied his request, claiming that the PET scan would be "highly suggestive" at best. 

                The debate over the use of neuroscience in the law centers around a few major points.  Firstly, there is the ignorance of law among scientists and there is an ignorance of science among lawyers.  There also exists the concern of undue influence on juries.  Denno found that neuroscience evidence is applied mostly in capital cases, and then nearly exclusively for mitigation.  She believes that there is a hyper focus on the "deficiencies" of neuroscience in the courtroom which detracts from the flaws of other types of evidence and the influence of out-dated psychoanalysis. 

                Both Dr. Gur and Professor Denno favor neuroscience as an important tool in law.  This incompatibility of these two fields was demonstrated in the case of Christopher Tiegreen.  After getting into a severe automobile accident, he fell into a coma.  A month later, he emerged a different person.  A damaged frontal lobe and sheared brain stem turned the once gentle Tiegreen into a violent man. As a result, his family sent him to a 24 hour surveillance  duplex apartment.  On Sept 11, 2009 Tiegreen walked out of the duplex and attacked a young women and her 20 month-old son  in a nearby yard.   

                Charged with aggravated assault, battery, sexual battery and cruelty to a child in the third degree,  Tiegren's lawyer sought to have him declared mentally incompetent.  This conclusion was based on the severe brain  impairment that followed the automobile accident. But the state presented a psychologist who claimed that Tiegren was competent and aware of the charges brought against him. The jury found Tiegreen competent. After losing an appeal, Tiegreen's lawyer took the case to the Georgia Supreme Court. The court has yet to responded to the petition.  This case illustrates the difficulties of bringing together neuroscience  and law.