In the future, neuroscientific evidence may be as prevalent as DNA evidence in the criminal justice system. Today on The State of Things, experts discussed the future of . Here are some highlights.
鈥淢y brain made me do it鈥�
- to argue that they don鈥檛 have the capacity for intentionality. Some crimes, like the highest level of murder, legally require planning and premeditation. If a defendant鈥檚 neurobiology shows that they have difficulty planning and are more likely to act out of impulse, they might be convicted for second degree murder, which carries a less severe punishment.
鈥淚鈥檓 just a teenage dirtbag, baby鈥� ~ Wheatus
-鈥� so the law treats them as less responsible for their actions. It鈥檚 difficult to legislate exactly when a person becomes cognitively mature since it varies from person to person, but neuroscience is able to get a more individualized picture of that development.
鈥淚鈥檓 not a racist, but鈥︹��
-. That means that the prejudices we are least aware of are the ones that may influence our decisions the most. However, simply telling a jury that they probably have implicit biases can lead to significantly more equitable outcomes.
"We are arresting individuals who have broken no law."
"But they will."
~ Minority Report
-If neuroscience becomes commonplace in legal proceedings, . Current protections against self incrimination do not prohibit the use of physical evidence such as fingerprints or DNA, and brain scans could be interpreted as physical evidence.
Listen to the full episode:
Guests include , professor of law, genome sciences & policy and philosophy; , professor of psychology and neuroscience; , professor of practical ethics; and , professor of psychology and neuroscience.
