Neuroimaging in criminal trials and the role of psychiatrists expert witnesses: A case study.
Details
Serval ID
serval:BIB_3E5FB3C2F6E7
Type
Article: article from journal or magazin.
Publication sub-type
Review (review): journal as complete as possible of one specific subject, written based on exhaustive analyses from published work.
Collection
Publications
Institution
Title
Neuroimaging in criminal trials and the role of psychiatrists expert witnesses: A case study.
Journal
International journal of law and psychiatry
ISSN
1873-6386 (Electronic)
ISSN-L
0160-2527
Publication state
Published
Issued date
2019
Peer-reviewed
Oui
Volume
65
Pages
101359
Language
english
Notes
Publication types: Journal Article ; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Publication Status: ppublish
Publication Status: ppublish
Abstract
Various neuroscientific techniques are increasingly being used in criminal courts causing a vivid debate on the way that this kind of techniques will and should be used as scientific evidence. The role of experts in this context is important, since it is them that analyse, present, interpret and communicate the results of these techniques to the judges and the jury. In an attempt to contribute to the discussion about the role of the experts in criminal cases where neuroimaging evidence was introduced, we examined twenty seven cases from the US and Europe. Focusing on the role of experts and their presentation of neuroscientific evidence, we aimed to examine the extent to which neuroimaging data can contribute to the construction of a solid and more objective, "scientifically - based" case. We found that neurobiological information introduced through experts' testimony is generally used in order to demonstrate some physical, organic base of a psychiatric condition, or/and in order to make visible some brain lesion, (structural or functional), susceptible to have affected the capacity to reason and to control one's impulses. While neuroimaging evidence is often presented by the defence as a scientific method able to offer a precise diagnosis of the pathology in question, our case analysis shows that the very same neurobiological evidence can be interpreted in different - sometimes diametrically opposed - ways by defence and State experts. Conflicting testimony about the same empirical evidence goes against the hypothesis of neuroscientific techniques constituting "objective and hard evidence", able to reach solid, scientific and objective conclusions. Frequent conflicts between neuroimaging experts require the courts to deal with the resulting uncertainty. As the law changes with technology, it is necessary for legal professionals to train and be prepared for the new issues they may encounter in light of new developments in neuroscience, so that they become more vigilant as to the interpretation of neuroscientific data.
Keywords
Brain Injuries/diagnostic imaging, Criminals/legislation & jurisprudence, Criminals/psychology, Europe, Expert Testimony/methods, Forensic Psychiatry/legislation & jurisprudence, Forensic Psychiatry/methods, Humans, Mental Disorders/diagnostic imaging, Neuroimaging/psychology, Neurosciences/legislation & jurisprudence, Neurosciences/methods, United States, Criminal law, Experts, Neuroimaging, Neurolaw, Neuroscience, Psychiatry
Pubmed
Web of science
Create date
29/05/2017 9:58
Last modification date
06/08/2020 5:23