Is a Picture Worth a Thousand Words? Neuroimaging in the Courtroom

Abstract

Neuroimaging has advanced our understanding of how the living brain operates, providing structural and functional images of both healthy and diseased brains. This technology pervades today's society, particularly affecting the legal arena. Some judges argue that scientific evidence, which offers insight into the offender's mental state, is crucial because it is the only means of determining whether an offender's punishment is proportional to his crime. Other judges argue that “objective” evidence does not “wholly determine the controversy,” and focus instead on their duty as gatekeepers to independently evaluate scientific evidence. If courts use brain images to make their culpability determinations more objective and sound, these images must meet pertinent legal standards and shed light on medical conditions. For neuroimaging to meet these legal and medical standards with scientific integrity, scientists must convincingly correlate the dynamic images in a person's brain with the way the person is thinking or acting at that moment.

Neuroethics and fMRI: Mapping a Fledgling Relationship

“…“Neuroimaging data seem particularly compelling to lay people and may present a “unique danger because of the appearance of scientific neutrality” [55].…”

Colorful brains: 14years of display practice in functional neuroimaging

“…If considering the effect of images on a lay audience with respect to the persuasiveness of a scientific argument (Keehner et al, 2011;McCabe and Castel, 2008 ), color has not figured as a prominent attribute. The same is true for ethical concerns about misleading imagedriven misrepresentations of neuroscientific results in the public (Illes et al, 2010) or courtroom (Baskin et al, 2007). Empirical research on the display practice in neuroimaging (methods of image creation, image iconographies, epistemic effects of neuroimages, etc.)…”

Effects of Neuroimaging Evidence on Mock Juror Decision Making

“…Another aspect of this controversy concerns the technical complexity of brain imaging and the subjective decisions and interpretations it entails. Neuroscientists utilizing these techniques must make subjective decisions about the type of imaging and tasks to be performed, level of detail and degree of clarity they seek in each test, how to filter the signal from background noise, and how to define a control group and interpret data, among other things (Baskin, Edersheim, & Price, ). The process is further complicated by the fact that brain structures vary significantly within a normal population, as does the way the brain compensates for pathologies, and the fact that there are no normative data that can account for factors associated with brain dysfunction (e.g., previous head injuries, substance abuse, medications).…”