Possible questions

● Are Brain scans researched enough to be the possible deciding factor in court cases? Commented [SB1]: I am 100% sure someone will ask a
question like this, great job in bringing it up!
○ Brain scans are a trusted, researched and thorough technique and have been
used medically since the 1990’s. They not only indicate the neurological
problems the patient may be having, but also tie that issue to the functioning
and structural set up of the brain. They are accurate enough to provide court
cases with detailed explanations that the jury and judge can decide to use as
evidence or not.
● Will neuroscience take away the main principles of law?
○ No, Instead of thinking of it as a “one or the other” situation, the two will
work together in courtrooms to ensure justice is served in the most fair and
analytical ways available. In the article by Michael Gazzaniga’s, it is stated
that “law may eventually come from deeper understanding of the
neurological causes of antisocial, illegal behaviors. Future discoveries could
lay the foundation for new types of criminal defenses, for example”(4). The
usefulness and reliability of brain scans provide an in-depth analysis for
evidence in a trial.

● Do criminals take advantage by defending themselves with neurological evidence?

● Answer: In around 7 per cent of the judicial opinions, defendants argued that their
neurobiology made them commit the crime involuntarily. However, the success of
defendants who attempt to use neuroscientific evidence to prove their innocence is far
more limited. Only if the defendant’s actions directly resulted from a reflex or
convulsion arising from unconsciousness or sleep, the defense of involuntariness
might be recognized
● https://scanberlin.com/2017/11/26/neurolaw-what-can-neuroscience-contribute-in-
court/
Case example:
Case 1
When a police officer was about to arrest an accused, the situation turned into a high-
speed car chase. Later, the defendant argued that he had suffered from head injury 8
weeks before which made him act unconsciously in a state of shock during the police
chase. Experts concluded that the present MRI scan did not support any states of
unconsciousness.
(https://law.justia.com/cases/ohio/third-district-court-of-appeals/2011/2011-ohio-
404.html)
Case 2
Husband who strangled wife in his sleep walks free from court
(https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/nov/20/brian-thomas-dream-strangler-
tragedy)

● 2. How reliable is lie detector? Is it possible for people to cheat the system?
● -polygraph measures anxiety such as changes in pulse, blood pressure or respiration to
determine if a person is lying or not. However, an honest person may be nervous
while answering truthfully and a dishonest person may be non-anxious.
 ● Answer: Instead of polygraph, functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) can be
used to detect truthfulness by seeing inside the brain. fMRI machine tracks blood flow
to activated brain areas. While a person is lying, the brain exerts extra effort to tell the
lie and more blood is needed. According to a study from the Perelman School of
Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, fMRI machine can identify deception up
to 90% of the time.
●
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3906532/The-brain-scan-tell-lying-
Researchers-say-fMRI-scans-better-polygraph-working-telling-truth.html

3. Will brain scanning violate rights to privacy?Possibilities of ‘brainjacking’ and leakage of

informations?
-To find one guilty individual in either of those groups means there is a large probability of
invading the privacy of a number of innocent people.
Answer: New suggested rights assert concerns a person’s freedom to use, or refuse to use,
brain stimulation and other techniques to alter their mental state.
https://lsspjournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40504-017-0050-1
1. Cognitive liberty
- Entitle individuals to make free and competent decisions regarding their use or
neurotechnology
2. Mental privacy
-Protect individuals against the unconsented intrusion by third parties into their brain
data as well as against the unauthorized collection of those data
3. Mental integrity
-protect individuals from illicit and harmful manipulations of people’s neural activity
through the misuse of neurotechnology
4. Psychological continuity
-Preserve people’s personal identity and the continuity of their mental life from
unconsented external alteration by third parties.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/do-we-have-a-right-to-mental-privacy-and-
cognitive-liberty/
 A blog : authur marcello ienca - PhD, MSc, MA,
(https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Marcello_Ienca)

4. If the scientific interpretations of neurological results are accurate, say, 90% of the time,
these interpretations will be misleading 10 of 100 times. Defendants then face a considerable
risk to liberty or life if they (or prosecutors) rely on neuroscientific evidence
Answer: Distribute the burden of proof or persuasion

If society is most concerned not to convict the innocent, then it can reduce that kind of error
by placing a heavy burden of proof on prosecutors. The uncertainties in neuroscientific data
will make it hard for prosecutors to use such data to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the
conditions of responsibility, including intention and sanity, are met.
-In contrast, if society is most concerned not to acquit and release the guilty and dangerous,
then it can reduce that kind of error by shifting the burden of proof onto the defense. If the
defense is required to prove, even to a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant is
insane in order to be found not guilty by reason of insanity, then it will be hard to carry that
burden with uncertain evidence from neuroscience.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/4d4d/f4f7bd862a67306450bb4f1cdd4e3c41a8f3.pdf