The Role of Imaging in United States Courtrooms

Patel, Purvak; Meltzer, Carolyn C.; Mayberg, Helen S.; Levine, Kay L.

doi:10.1016/j.nic.2007.07.001

Cited by 20 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…And there are difficult, although not insurmountable, challenges in communicating across the law/neuroscience disciplinary divide, as well as in carefully and properly interpreting neuroscientific evidence within the specific legal contexts in which it is offered (Jones et al, 2013b). Not surprisingly, the intersections of law and neuroscience have prompted some debate over whether we will in fact see, at the frontier edges of this new discipline, a net gain in the fair and effective administration of justice, and in what specific contexts (Greene and Cohen, 2004;Sapolsky, 2004;Morse, 2006Morse, , 2010Morse, , 2011Patel et al, 2007;Pustilnik, 2009;Brown and Murphy, 2010;Hughes, 2010;Mayberg, 2010;Morse, 2010Morse, , 2011Pardo and Patterson, 2010;Legrenzi et al, 2011;Satel and Lilienfeld, 2013). But in our view, one thing is utterly clear.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Law and Neuroscience

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Law and Neuroscience

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…It is not unexpected, either, given the longstanding recourse of law to technoscience in order to render transparent that which seems irresolvably opaque ( Jasanoff, 2006 ). Yet, despite historical precedent the admissibility and reliability of neuroscientific evidence have been contested (see Patel et al, 2007 ). Although the question of whether ‘the use of neuroscientific evidence in the legal system will expand is an open and hotly debated question’ ( Jones and Shen, 2012 : 351), those individuals concerned with ‘neurolaw’ direct attention to the potential of neuroscience to impact on law – with some actively campaigning for the reshaping of legal systems and processes in light of neuroscientific insights.…”

Section: Neuroscience and The Normativementioning

confidence: 99%

The social life of the brain: Neuroscience in society

Pickersgill

2013

Current Sociology

132

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Neuroscience is viewed by a range of actors and institutions as a powerful means of creating new knowledge about our selves and societies. This article documents the shifts in expertise and identities potentially being propelled by neuroscientific research. It details the framing and effects of neuroscience within several social domains, including education and mental health, discussing some of the intellectual and professional projects it has animated therein (such as neuroethics). The analysis attends to the cultural logics by which the brain is sometimes made salient in society; simultaneously, it points towards some of parameters of the territory within which the social life of the brain plays out. Instances of societal resistance and agnosticism are discussed, which may render problematic sociological research on neuroscience in society that assumes the universal import of neuroscientific knowledge (as either an object of celebration or critique). This article concludes with reflections on how sociotechnical novelty is produced and ascribed, and the implications of this.

show abstract

“…Functional neuroimaging has been introduced as evidence in a variety of roles in the US and other legal systems, most often as evidence of brain injury in tort cases but also by the defense in criminal trials (Patel et al, 2007). In the latter case it is most often used for mitigation in the sentencing phase of criminal trials, where it can provide concrete, visual evidence of a person’s abnormal or diminished faculties (Hughes, 2010).…”

Section: Appeal Of Diagnostic Neuroimaging To Practitioners Patientsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Puzzle of Neuroimaging and Psychiatric Diagnosis: Technology and Nosology in an Evolving Discipline

Farah

Gillihan

2012

AJOB Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Brain imaging provides ever more sensitive measures of structure and function relevant to human psychology and has revealed correlates for virtually every psychiatric disorder. Yet it plays no accepted role in psychiatric diagnosis beyond ruling out medical factors such as tumors or traumatic brain injuries. Why is brain imaging not used in the diagnosis of primary psychiatric disorders, such as depression, bipolar disease, schizophrenia, and ADHD? The present article addresses this question. It reviews the state of the art in psychiatric imaging, including diagnostic and other applications, and explains the nonutility of diagnostic imaging in terms of aspects of both the current state of imaging and the current nature of psychiatric nosology. The likely future path by which imaging-based diagnoses will be incorporated into psychiatry is also discussed. By reviewing one well-known attempt to use SPECT-scanning in psychiatric diagnosis, the article examines a real-world practice that illustrates several related points: the appeal of the idea of image-assisted diagnosis for physicians, patients and families, despite a lack of proven effectiveness, and the mismatch between the categories and dimensions of current nosology and those suggested by imaging.

show abstract

The Role of Imaging in United States Courtrooms

Cited by 20 publications

References 45 publications

Law and Neuroscience

Law and Neuroscience

The social life of the brain: Neuroscience in society

The Puzzle of Neuroimaging and Psychiatric Diagnosis: Technology and Nosology in an Evolving Discipline

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About