Farahany, NitaSalmanowitz, Natalie Jane2015-09-012015-09-012015https://hdl.handle.net/10161/10560<p>The presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial lie at the core of the United</p><p>States justice system. While existing rules and practices serve to uphold these principles,</p><p>the administration of justice is significantly compromised by a covert but influential</p><p>factor: namely, implicit racial biases. These biases can lead to automatic associations</p><p>between race and guilt, as well as impact the way in which judges and jurors interpret</p><p>information throughout a trial. Despite the well-documented presence of implicit racial</p><p>biases, few steps have been taken to ameliorate the problem in the courtroom setting.</p><p>This paper suggests that neurointerventions, such as computerized brain-training tasks</p><p>and noninvasive brain stimulation techniques, have the potential to provide promising</p><p>mitigation strategies in the near future. Through analyzing the various ethical and legal</p><p>considerations, this paper contends that the use of neurointerventions with judges would</p><p>be both justifiable and morally obligatory should safe and effective means become</p><p>available. A similar argument is put forth for jurors, albeit in a more theoretical light due</p><p>to practical and logistical barriers. Given that implicit racial biases can seriously</p><p>undermine the fairness of the justice system, this paper ultimately asserts that</p><p>unconventional de-biasing methods warrant legitimate attention and consideration.</p>EthicsCourtroomImplicit BiasesNeurolawMaster's thesis