positive evidence? New Royal Society report concludes that many fruits of neuroscience, as the analysis of the brain, are not yet ready to use
in legal proceedings.
National Institutes of Health
LONDON -The tantalizing prospect of using a brain scan to determine whether a witness is lying, or genetic analysis to determine if a murder suspect is predisposed to commit violent crimes, are premature and unrealistic, according to a new report on neuroscience and the law presented today by the Royal Society of the UK. But neuroscientists may be able to provide evidence to determine if head injuries are accidental, and if a violent offender is likely to strike again.
As advances in neuroscience, it is easy to see why lawyers are tempted to put its stake tools on behalf of their clients, say the authors. "Neuroscience is committed to understanding the behavior and the law is involved in the regulation of behavior," experimental psychologist Nicholas Mackintosh, University of Cambridge, who led the working group of the Royal Society on neuroscience and the law during a press conference last week. Although it is not known whether the lawyers have made mental health reports or brain imaging in courtrooms in the United Kingdom as evidence, mental health is used as a defense 0 times per year in the US, the report noted, especially in murder trial where the defendant can get the death penalty.
A useful application of neuroscience in the courtroom would be the ability to detect lies using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). But at best, Mackintosh said, as the imaging may be able to detect deliberate lies; it would be useless if a witness really believed he was telling the truth. This limitation has not stopped at least two US-based companies to market such sensors lies, however, and "we take a singularly skeptical view of this," said Mackintosh. "Neuroscience, though promising, is very young."
legal expert Roger Brownsword of King's College London warned that as forensic DNA evidence, neuroscientific evidence could be subject to "easy translations" by juries of lay people or the media. "Perceptions of jurors could be quite dangerous unless they have been tutored in what science is," he said. Juries, for example, might be too impressed with the brain images presented in the courtroom if they do not understand their limitations.
the authors recommended that law schools and judicial systems do more to build "bridges" between scientists and those involved in the act. UK law schools for example, could offer courses on neuroscience as some American law schools such as Yale University are already doing.
One area where Mackintosh said neuroscience holds the potential to provide "tangible evidence" is in the area of risk assessment. determine which criminals are released, are likely to reoffend for example, a gene that encodes monoamine oxidase ( MAOA ) was introduced as the "gene of violence" because many violent criminals who were abused as children have a form of the gene. Although other genes and environmental factors are certainly involved, Mackintosh said: "If this gene even slightly increases the probability of recurrence, whereas that risk assessment is all about," he said. " it is at least something worth thinking about. "still, he noted," the risk assessment is a risky business and is notoriously inaccurate. "
Most neuroscientists and the Royal Society, however, rejects the idea that "having a psychopathic brain" is a general defense against criminal charges. "It does not require you to behave in a criminal way," said Mackintosh.
Another issue discussed report is the age at which children should be held fully accountable for crimes. In Britain, the age of criminal responsibility is 10 years, one of the lowest in the world. This young age has been controversial in the past, in particular in several cases of recent murders involving children, and more recently the wave of riots in August Although the Royal Society took no position on what should be the age, Mackintosh said "Science certainly suggests that the brain 10 years is immature in many ways. It also suggests that it is huge individual variation "and that therefore, other factors must be considered. Perhaps, he added, "it should not be an arbitrary age limit for criminal responsibility."
Other ways in which neuroscience might be closer to bear fruit in the courtroom is to determine whether the head injury of a baby is accidental or the result of shaken baby syndrome Mackintosh said. Pathologists are more or less agree on which symptoms constitute evidence of shaking a baby over 6 months, but it is controversial whether these criteria can diagnose abuse in young infants. Researchers are also studying whether brain scans could one day be used to determine if the amount of pain a person is reporting arises, or if the person is faking in order to obtain government benefits. Mackintosh warnings reported pain does not always correlate with the actual extent of injury and many other mental phenomena come in.
0 Komentar