The Bioethics of Neuroimaging in Law

As an emergent discipline of the legal field, neurolaw is becoming more salient as imaging technologies such as fMRIs and PET scans are finding application in the courtroom. Neuroimaging has been standard use in hospitals and clinics for decades, but its use in legal decisions is a relatively recent advancement in the intersection of law and neuroscience. Neuroimaging techniques are not infallible, especially when their interpretation serves as a piece of evidence regarding the culpability of a defendant in a criminal trial. Neuroimaging has come to the fore of debate due to its increasing use as evidence in criminal trials by plaintiffs and defendants. Additionally, studies show that exposure to neuroscience explanations in a legal setting—specifically, neuroimaging—can influence perceptions and decision-making, making many legal practitioners and scientists wary of the ability of judges and juries, who lack neuroscience training, to understand, interpret, and weigh the information presented. Until the bar council and medical board can bridge their respective disciplines with a set of standard protocols and informed interpretation of scientific instruments, neurolaw is at a standstill.

While the evidentiary utility of neuroimaging in court is contested, there is potential for the further development of neuroimaging as an indicator of criminal culpability in the future. The application of neuroimaging begs several questions. Neuroimaging cannot determine causation, only correlation. In a criminal case, what is in question is the mental state of the defendant at the time the alleged crime was committed (mens rea); neuroimaging cannot tell us this, but it can give insight into the loci of activation associated with disordered behavior, leaving significant room for interpretation on other legal decisions regarding criminality.

The legal system maintains a hardline stance on the age of majority (18), for example. If neuroimaging continues to advance and become more reliable in court, how might it be used in cases where this instrumentation indicates that a 14-year-old with a brain like a 19-year-old ought to be tried as an adult or a 19-year-old with the brain of a 14-year-old ought to be tried as a juvenile. The lines quickly blur in this hypothetical situation. What’s more, are people of means advantaged by a potential buttress in the form of neuroimaging? As neuroscientists continue to uncover more about the functionality and structure of the brain, they also develop more precise instrumentation. Undoubtedly, the use of neuroimaging will garner further attention from the public eye, with wide-reaching ethical and legal implications for the future. (by AB and CP)

Bibliography

Alda A. 2013. Brains on trial. PBS. The Chedd Angier Company.

BrainFacts.org. 2008. Neurolaw: Neuroscience in the courtroom. BrainFacts/SfN.

Ed Thomas Law - Iowa Code Section 229.22. 2010. Iowa Department of Public Safety.

Klein, Ann. 2016. My Son Killed the Town Hero.

Kuersten A. 2015. Opinion: Brain scans in the courtroom. TheScientist.

N’Diaye M. 2018. How much neuroscience is actually allowed in the courtroom? Seeker.