Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Neuroscience and Criminal Law: Perils and Promises

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Palgrave Handbook of Applied Ethics and the Criminal Law

Abstract

This chapter addresses the potential contributions of neuroscience to criminal justice decision-making and policy, with special emphasis on criminal responsibility. The central question is whether neuroscience is relevant to criminal justice. The general conclusion is that it is scarcely useful at present but may become more relevant as the science progresses. After explaining the meaning of criminal responsibility in use, the chapter speculates about the source of claims for the positive influence of neuroscience. The scientific status of behavioral neuroscience and two radical challenges to responsibility neuroscience allegedly raises, determinism and the death of agency, are discussed next. Then, the specific relevance of neuroscience to criminal law and the use of neuroscience in criminal cases in the United States and abroad are addressed. The penultimate section points to some areas warranting modest optimism for the use of neuroscience in criminal justice. A brief conclusion follows.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    But see Lieberman et al. (2009 p. 299).

  2. 2.

    But see Bennett et al. (2009a, b) for an amusing exception.

  3. 3.

    But see Vilares et al. (2017) for a “proof of concept” exception.

  4. 4.

    But see Jones (2013) for a contrary view.

  5. 5.

    For example, a re-analysis of the Aharoni et al. study (2013, n. 35) by Russell Poldrack, a noted “neuromethodologist,” demonstrated that the effect size was tiny (Poldrack, accessed January 11, 2018). The study used good but not the best behavioral predictive methods for comparison.

References

  • Miller v. Alabama, 132 S.Ct. 2455 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  • Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246 (1952).

    Google Scholar 

  • People v. Weinstein, 591 N.Y.S.2d 715 (1992).

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962).

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v. Hinckley, 525 F. Supp. 1342 (D.Ct. D.C. 1981).

    Google Scholar 

  • Adolphs, Ralph. 2015. The unsolved problems of neuroscience. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 19: 173–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aharoni, Eyal, Gina M. Vincent, Carla L. Harenski, Vince D. Calhoun, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Michael S. Gazzaniga, and Kent A. Kiehl. 2013. Neuroprediction of future arrest. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 110: 6223–6228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alimardani, Armin, and Jason Chin. 2019. Neurolaw in Australia: The use of neuroscience in Australian criminal proceedings. Neuroethics 12: 255–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, Maxwell R., and Peter M.S. Hacker. 2003. Philosophical foundations of neuroscience. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, Craig M., George L. Wolford, and Michael B. Miller. 2009a. The principled control of false positives in neuroimaging. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience 4: 417–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, Craig M., Abigail A. Baird, Michael B. Miller, and George L. Wolford. 2009b. Neural correlates of interspecies perspective taking in the post-mortem Atlantic Salmon: An argument for proper multiple comparisons correction. Journal of Serendipitous and Unexpected Results 1 (1): 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Button, Katherine S., John P.A. Ioannidis, Claire Mokrysz, Brian A. Nosek, Jonathan Flint, Emma S.J. Robinson, and Marcus R. Munafo. 2013. Power failure: Why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 14 (May): 365–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Catley, P., and L. Claydon. 2015. The use of neuroscientific evidence in the courtroom by those accused of criminal offenses in England and Wales. Journal of Law and the Biosciences 2: 510–549.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, J. 2015. The use of neuroscientific evidence in Canadian criminal proceedings. Journal of Law and the Biosciences 2: 550–579.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chin, Jason M. 2014. Psychological science’s replicability crisis and what it means for science in the courtroom. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 2: 225–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, Kevin. 2017. The brain defense: Murder in Manhattan and the dawn of neuroscience in America’s courtrooms. New York: Penguin. (“Spyder Cystkopf” was the pseudonym first used in the literature).

    Google Scholar 

  • de Kogel, C.H., and E.J.M.C. Westgeest. 2015. Neuroscientific and behavioral genetic information in criminal cases in the Netherlands. Journal of Law and the Biosciences 2: 580–605.

    Google Scholar 

  • Economist. 2002. Open your mind. May 25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eklund, Anders, Thomas E. Nichols, and Hans Knutsson. 2016. Cluster failure: Why fMRI inferences for spatial extent have inflated false-positive rates. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 113: 7900–7905.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faigman, David L., John Monahan, and Christopher Slobogin. 2014. Group to individual (G2i) inference in scientific expert testimony. The University of Chicago Law Review 81: 417–480.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farahany, N.A. 2015. Neuroscience and behavioral genetics in US criminal law: An empirical analysis. Journal of Law and the Biosciences 2: 485–509.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, Robin. 2009. The role of science in law. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Francis, Allen. 2009. Whither DSM-V? British Journal of Psychiatry 195: 391–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gabriel, Markus. 2017. I am not a brain: Philosophy of mind for the 21st century. Hoboken: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaudet, L.M., and G.E. Marchant. 2016. Under the radar: Neuroimaging evidence in the criminal courtroom. Drake Law Review 64: 577–661.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, Daniel T., Gary King, Stephen Pettigrew, and Timothy D. Wilson. 2016. Comment on “estimating the reproducibility of psychological science”. Science 351: 1037a.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greely, Henry T. 2013. Mind reading, neuroscience, and the law. In A primer on criminal law and neuroscience, ed. Stephen J. Morse and Adina L. Roskies. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hong, Yong Wook, Yejong Yoo, and Choong-Wa Woo. 2019. False-positive neuroimaging: Undisclosed flexibility in testing spatial hypotheses allows presenting anything as a replicated finding. NeuroImage 19: 384–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunter, James Davison, and Paul Nedelsky. 2018. Science and the good: The tragic quest for the foundations of morality. New Haven/London: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Husak, Douglas, and Emily Murphy. 2013. The relevance of the neuroscience of addiction to the criminal law. In A primer on criminal law and neuroscience, ed. Stephen J. Morse and Adina L. Roskies. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ioannides, John P. 2011. Excess significance bias in the literature on brain volume abnormalities. Archives of General Psychiatry 68: 773–780.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, Owen D. 2013. Seven ways neuroscience aids law. In Neurosciences and the human person: New perspectives on human activities, ed. Antonio Battro, Stanislas Dehaene, and Wolf Singer. Scripta Varia: Pontifical Academy of Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lieberman, Matthew D., Elliot T. Berkman, and Tor D. Wager. 2009. Correlations in social neuroscience aren’t voodoo: A commentary on Vul et al. Perspectives on Psychological Science 4: 299–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Logothetis, Nikos K. 2008. What we can and cannot do with fMRI. Nature 453 (12 June): 869–878.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McHugh, Paul R., and Phillip Slavney. 1998. The perspectives of psychiatry. 2nd ed. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mele, Alfred R. 2009. Effective intentions: The power of conscious will. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2014. Free: Why science hasn’t disproved free will. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Menninger, Karl. 1968. The crime of punishment. New York: The Viking Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, Gregory A. 2010. Mistreating psychology in the decades of the brain. Perspectives on Psychological Science 5: 716–743.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, Michael S. 2012. Responsible choices, desert-based legal institutions, and the challenges of contemporary neuroscience. Social Philosophy and Policy 29 (1): 233–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morse, Stephen J. 1995. Brain and blame. Georgetown Law Journal 84: 527–549.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2004. New neuroscience, old problems. In Neuroscience and the law: Brain, mind and the scales of justice, ed. Brent Garland. New York: Dana Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2011. Lost in translation? An essay on law and neuroscience. In Vol. 13 of Law and neuroscience, ed. Michael Freeman. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2015. Neuroprediction: New technology, old problems. Bioethica Forum 8: 128–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2018. The neuroscientific non-challenge to meaning, morals, and purpose. In Neuroexistentialism: Meaning, morals, and purpose in the age of neuroscience, ed. G.D. Caruso and O. Flanagan. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morse, Stephen J., and William T. Newsome. 2013. Criminal responsibility, criminal competence, and prediction of criminal behavior. In A primer on criminal law and neuroscience, ed. Stephen J. Morse and Adina L. Roskies. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mudrik, Liad, and Uri Maoz. 2014. “Me & my brain”: Exposing neuroscience’s closet dualism. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 27: 211–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nachev, Parashkev, and Peter Hacker. 2015. The neural antecedents to voluntary action: Response to commentaries. Cognitive Neuroscience 6: 180–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Open Science Collaboration. 2015. Psychology: Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science 349 (6251). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716.

  • Pardini, Dustin A., Adrian Raine, Kirk Erickson, and Rolf Loeber. 2014. Lower amygdala volume in men is associated with childhood aggression, early psychopathic traits, and future violence. Biological Psychiatry 75 (1): 73–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pardo, Michael, and Dennis Patterson. 2013. Minds, brains, and law: The conceptual foundations of law and neuroscience. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pereboom, D., and G.D. Caruso. 2018. Hard-incompatibilist existentialism: Neuroscience, punishment, and meaning in life. In Neuroexistentialism: Meaning, morals, and purpose in the age of neuroscience, ed. G.D. Caruso and O. Flanagan. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poldrack, Russell. 2006. Can cognitive processes be inferred from neuroimaging data? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10: 59–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2013. How well can we predict future criminal acts from fMRI data? Russpokdrack.com. http://www.russpoldrack.org/search?q=aharoni. Accessed 11 Jan 2018.

  • Poldrack, Russel A. 2018. The new mind readers: What neuroimaging can and cannot reveal about our thoughts. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Poldrack, Russell A., Chris I. Baker, Joke Durnez, Krzysztof J. Gorgolwski, Paul M. Matthews, Marcus R. Munafo, Thomas E. Nichols, Jean-baptiste Poline, Edward Vul, and Tal Yarkoni. 2017. Scanning the horizon: Towards transparent and reproducible neuroimaging research. Nature Reviews. Neuroscience 18: 115–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues. 2015. Gray matters: Topics at the intersection of neuroscience, ethics and society. Vol. 2. Washington, DC: Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rakoff, J.S. 2016. Neuroscience and the law: Don’t rush in. New York Review of Books, May.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rego, Mark D. 2016. Counterpoint: Clinical neuroscience is not ready for clinical use. British Journal of Psychiatry 208: 312–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rissman, Jesse, Henry T. Greely, and Anthony D. Wagner. 2010. Detecting individual memories through the neural decoding of memory states and past experience. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 107: 9849–9854.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rissman, Jesse, Tiffany E. Chow, Nicco Reggente, and Anthony D. Wagner. 2016. Decoding fMRI signatures of real-world autobiographical memory retrieval. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 28: 604–620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roskies, Adina L. 2013. Brain imaging techniques. In A primer on criminal law and neuroscience, ed. Stephen J. Morse and Adina L. Roskies. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roskies, Adina L., N.J. Schweitzer, and Michael J. Saks. 2013. Neuroimages in court: Less biasing than feared. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 17: 99–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schurger, Aaron, and Sebo Uithol. 2015. Nowhere and everywhere: The causal origin of voluntary action. Review of Philosophy and Psychology 6: 761–778.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schurger, Aaron, Jacobo D. Sitt, and Stanislas Dehaene. 2012. An accumulator model for spontaneous neural activity prior to self-initiated movement. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 109. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.12104.67109.

  • Schweitzer, N.J., Michael J. Saks, Emily R. Murphy, Adina L. Roskies, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, and Lyn M. Gaudet. 2011. Neuroimages as evidence in a mens rea defense: No impact. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 17: 357–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sehon, Scott Robert. 2016. Free will and action explanation: A non-causal, compatibilist account. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sifferd, Katrina L. 2006. In defense of the use of commonsense psychology in the criminal law. Law and Philosophy 25: 571–612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simmons, Joseph P., Leif D. Nelson, and Uri Simonsohn. 2011. False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science 22: 1359–1366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stone, Alan. 1984. Law, psychiatry, and morality. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Szucs, Denes, and John Ioannidis. 2017. Empirical assessment of published effect sizes and power in the recent cognitive neuroscience and psychology literature. Plos: Biology 15 (3). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2000797.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Varoquaux, Gael. 2017. Cross-validation failure: Small sample sizes lead to large error bars. NeuroImage. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.06.061.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vilares, Iris, Michael J. Wesley, Woo-Young Ahn, Richard J. Bonnie, Morris Hoffman, Owen D. Jones, Stephen J. Morse, Gideon Yaffe, Terry Lohrenz, and P. Read Montague. 2017. Predicting the knowledge–recklessness distinction in the human brain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America PNAS 114. https://doi.org/10.1073/pn.as.1619385114.

  • Vul, Ed, Piotr Winkleman, Christine Harris, and Harold Pashler. 2009. Puzzlingly high correlations in fMRI studies of emotion, personality, and social cognition. Perspectives on Psychological Science 4: 274–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1953. Philosophical investigations. New York: The Macmillan Company.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Stephen J. Morse

Authors
  1. Stephen J. Morse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephen J. Morse .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of San Diego School of Law, San Diego, CA, USA

    Larry Alexander

  2. University of Virginia School of Law, Charlottesville, VA, USA

    Kimberly Kessler Ferzan

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Morse, S.J. (2019). Neuroscience and Criminal Law: Perils and Promises. In: Alexander, L., Kessler Ferzan, K. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Applied Ethics and the Criminal Law. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22811-8_20

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation