Episteme 5 (3):pp. 359-373 (2008)
|Abstract||This paper explores whether brain images may be admitted as evidence in criminal trials under Federal Rule of Evidence 403, which weighs probative value against the danger of being prejudicial, confusing, or misleading to fact finders. The paper summarizes and evaluates recent empirical research relevant to these issues. We argue that currently the probative value of neuroimages for criminal responsibility is minimal, and there is some evidence of their potential to be prejudicial or misleading. We also propose experiments that will directly assess how jurors are influenced by brain images|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Joseph Dumit (2003). Is It Me or My Brain? Depression and Neuroscientific Facts. Journal of Medical Humanities 24 (1/2):35-47.
Zenon W. Pylyshyn (2002). Mental Imagery: In Search of a Theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (2):157-182.
Colin Klein (2010). Images Are Not the Evidence in Neuroimaging. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 61 (2):265-278.
Katrina L. Sifferd (2013). Translating Scientific Evidence Into the Language of the ‘Folk’: Executive Function as Capacity-Responsibility. In Nicole A. Vincent (ed.), Legal Responsibility and Neuroscience. Oxford University Press.
Adina L. Roskies (2008). Neuroimaging and Inferential Distance. Neuroethics 1 (1):19-30.
Adina L. Roskies (2007). Are Neuroimages Like Photographs of the Brain? Philosophy of Science 74 (5):860-872.
Daniel C. Dennett (2002). Does Your Brain Use the Images in It, and If so, How? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (2):189-190.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads17 ( #78,020 of 722,813 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #36,644 of 722,813 )
How can I increase my downloads?