Browsing by Subject "Neurolaw"

Neuroscience is increasingly used during sentencing in criminal courtrooms to mitigate punishment. However, neuroscience is not presented in a vacuum—it is generally used to describe a defendant’s neuropsychological state in the context of other mitigating circumstances. It is important to explore how decision-makers reason about neuroscience information in the courtrooms given the consequences of sentencing decisions. The present studies examine how neuroscience information presented across different mitigating contexts impacts legally relevant perceptions, including judgments of control over behavior and punishment decisions. Study 1 uses qualitative methods to explore how judges and lawyers use and reason about neuroscience information in the courts. Study 2 investigates whether neuroscience information, when paired with potentially mitigating circumstances about a defendant, differentially impacts legally relevant judgments. Study 3 assesses how the mitigating context in which neuroscience information is introduced differentially impacts causal attributions about a defendant’s behaviors. These studies offer novel insights about the use of neuroscience in the courtroom and demonstrate that the context in which this information is presented matters for the formation of legally relevant judgments.

The presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial lie at the core of the United

States justice system. While existing rules and practices serve to uphold these principles,

the administration of justice is significantly compromised by a covert but influential

factor: namely, implicit racial biases. These biases can lead to automatic associations

between race and guilt, as well as impact the way in which judges and jurors interpret

information throughout a trial. Despite the well-documented presence of implicit racial

biases, few steps have been taken to ameliorate the problem in the courtroom setting.

This paper suggests that neurointerventions, such as computerized brain-training tasks

and noninvasive brain stimulation techniques, have the potential to provide promising

mitigation strategies in the near future. Through analyzing the various ethical and legal

considerations, this paper contends that the use of neurointerventions with judges would

be both justifiable and morally obligatory should safe and effective means become

available. A similar argument is put forth for jurors, albeit in a more theoretical light due

to practical and logistical barriers. Given that implicit racial biases can seriously

undermine the fairness of the justice system, this paper ultimately asserts that

unconventional de-biasing methods warrant legitimate attention and consideration.