Can Our Brains Be Used Against Us in a Court of Law?
Neuroscience in the courtroom could jeopardize our privacy and civil rights
In 2010, an escaped convict named John McCluskey killed an older couple while stealing their camping trailer. Despite the horrific nature of the crime, the jury rejected a death penalty sentence based on a brain scan that revealed damage to McCluskey’s frontal lobe. Jurors believed this damage made him less culpable for the crime. In a way, they believed that his brain made him do it.
The field of neuroscience has attracted the attention of legal practitioners for decades. Whether trying to prove a defendant’s innocence or guilt, lawyers may use psychological tests or evaluations, the defendant’s medical history of head injuries, or even brain scans as evidence.
But the use of neuroscience still draws skepticism, especially from neuroscientists who believe it’s being applied prematurely, without an adequate understanding of what it could mean. This is due to the complexity of human behavior and the difficulty in studying it, as well as the potential for privacy or civil rights violations.
