Brain scans should not be used in court... for now

Jessica Hamzelou, contributorShould an offender's sentence be decided on the basis of a brain scan? A group of neuroscientists have put together a report for the Royal Society to assess this issue and other ways that progress in brain science might impact the law.Neuroscience is already making waves in court: an Italian woman convicted of murder recently had her sentence reduced on the grounds that her behaviour could be explained by abnormalities in her brain and genes.?The authors on the Royal Society panel, led by Nicholas Mackintosh of the University of Cambridge, also flag up research that suggests the brains of psychopaths are fundamentally different. This raises the question: should individuals with the brain anatomy of a psychopath have their sentence reduced on the ground of diminished responsibility, or should brain scan evidence be used to keep dangerous individuals locked away??

Perhaps one day we may also be able to find neurological clues that help predict whether a criminal is likely to reoffend. The report only goes so far as to suggest that such information may be useful in conjunction with other evidence.

Another key issue is that of the age of criminal responsibility. In England, the age at which a child can be tried as an adult is ten - this is too low, say the report's authors.?

Recent research into brain development suggests that crucial brain regions - such as the prefrontal cortex, which is important in decision making and impulse control - don't actually finish maturing until the age of around 20.?Neuroscientists claim to be able to identify certain patterns of brain activity that are associated with lying, a finding that has raised the possibility of brain scan-based lie detection. But many remain?skeptical?that such an approach can ever be useful in the legal setting.?

Lie detection research is often based on students telling untruths that are unlikely to have any impact on their lives - a situation that's difficult to compare to a criminal who might be lying for his life, not to mention that of a cunningly deceptive psychopath. Moreover, as the report points out, if such lie detection were possible, it wouldn't detect when a person was telling a falsehood they believed was true, or whether a person had learned how to trick the system.?

"In one experiment, the success rate for distinguishing truth from lies dropped from 100 per cent to 33 per cent when participants used countermeasures," say the authors. They conclude that "for the foreseeable future reliable fMRI lie detection is not a realistic prospect."?

In the same vein, attempts to measure the amount of pain that a person is in - perhaps to catch people who cheat on health insurance payouts - could also be foiled by individuals who learn how to simulate the brain activity associated with the experience of pain, the authors say.?

Most cases aren't so clear cut. The report concludes by recommending that neuroscientists and lawyers from around the globe meet to discuss the latest in each discipline once every three years.?

In the meantime, the authors recommend that the legal system consult with groups such as the British Neuroscience Association to assess how lawyers currently access scientific expertise. The authors also reckon it would be useful for law degrees to include some background in neuroscience, and for neuroscientists in training to consider the societal applications of their science.

Source: http://feeds.newscientist.com/c/749/f/10897/s/1aeb25c3/l/0L0Snewscientist0N0Cblogs0Cshortsharpscience0C20A110C120Cscientists0Ecaution0Eagainst0Ebra0Bhtml0DDCMP0FOTC0Erss0Gnsref0Fonline0Enews/story01.htm

kelsey grammer coco rocha coco rocha al sharpton izon heart attack grill gaddafi dead