The Privileges and Challenges of the Application of Cognitive Neuroscientific Evidence in the Criminal Trials

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

دانشگاه شهید بهشتی

Abstract

This paper relying on the descriptive-analytic method attempts to analyze neuroscientific evidence in the criminal files. The modern techniques of neuroscientific measurement such as functional imaging are a background of the production of neuroscience data. The validation of the neuroscientific evidence by examining privileges and limits held within it will take place. According to the findings of the research cognitive neuroscientific evidence despite its limits such as costly, causing suffering, and uncertainty, … can be supporting evidence along with other criminal evidence concerning the degree of self-control on behavior, the completion of the psychological findings in the personality file, the realization of the Penal majority, … The application of such presumptions in criminal trials requires the explanation of the basic strategies to resolve human rights challenges and ethical challenges.
 

Keywords

References

  1. اردبیلی، محمدعلی، و یاسمن سعیدی‌نژاد، «پزشکی شدن جرم و انحراف؛ درآمدی بر تحلیل گفتمان انتقادی رویکرد بالینی به مسئلۀ بزهکاری»، فصلنامه تحقیقات حقوقی، دوره بیست و چهارم، شماره 93، بهار 1400 ش.
  2. پتفت، آرین، و محمود عباسی، کلیات حقوق عصب‌شناختی، تهران، میزان، 1398 ش.
  3. رهبرپور، محمدرضا، «مبانی فقهی ممنوعیت و جرم‌انگاری در قلمرو اخلاق زیستی»، فصلنامه حقوق اسلامی، سال یازدهم، شماره 42، پاییز 1393 ش.
  4. همو، «مفهوم‌شناسی اخلاق زیستی و قلمرو آن»، فصلنامه اخلاق زیستی، سال اول، شماره 1، پاییز 1390 ش.
  5. صبوری‌پور، مهدی، و فاطمه علوی صدر، «سن مسئولیت کیفری کودکان و نوجوانان در قانون مجازات اسلامی 1392»، پژوهشنامۀ حقوق کیفری، سال ششم، شماره 1 (پیاپی 11)، بهار و تابستان 1394 ش.
  6. علوی، فخرالسادات، «تحلیل و ارزیابی تلقی سلبی فیلسوفان از اختیار»، نشریه علمی متافیزیک، سال یازدهم، شماره 28، پاییز و زمستان 1398 ش.
  7. علیزاده، بهرام، «ارادۀ آزاد؛ دیدگاه‌های معاصر در باب ارادۀ آزاد»، فصلنامه نقد و نظر، سال پانزدهم، شماره 1 (پیاپی 57)، بهار 1389 ش.
  8. کرباسی‌زاده، امیراحسان، و حسین شیخ‌رضایی، آشنایی با فلسفه ذهن، چاپ سوم، تهران، هرمس، 1395 ش.
  9. میرلو، محمدمهدی، و محمدعلی نظری، «نور و فلسفه از آغاز تا به امروز»، دوفصلنامه پژوهش‌های فلسفی، سال هفتم، شماره 12، بهار و تابستان 1392 ش.
  • نجفی ابرندآبادی، علی‌حسین و حمید هاشم‌بیکی، دانشنامه جرم‌شناسی، چاپ پنجم، تهران، کتابخانه گنج دانش، 1397 ش.
  • نوبهار، رحیم و خط شب، محمدرضا، «ارادۀ آزاد به مثابۀ رکن مسئولیت کیفری در جدال سازگارانگاری و ناسازگارانگاری»، مجلۀ پژوهش‌های حقوق جزا و جرم‌شناسی، دوره پنجم، شماره 9، بهار و تابستان 1396 ش.
  1. Aharoni, Eyal & Chadd M. Funk & Walter Sinnott-Armstrong & Michael S. Gazzaniga, “Can Neurological Evidence Help Courts Assess Criminal Responsibility? Lessons from Law and Neuroscience”, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Vol. 1124(1):145-160, 2008.
  2. Alimardani, Armin, An Empirical Study of the Use of Neuroscientific Evidence in Sentencing in New South Wales, Australia, PhD diss, University of New South Wales, 2019.
  3. , “Neuroscience, criminal responsibility and sentencing in an islamic country: Iran”, Journal of Law and the Biosciences, Vol. 5(3):724-742, 2018.
  4. Amodio, David M. “The nuroscience of prejudice and stereotyping”, Nature Reviews Neuroscience, Vol. 15(10):670-682, Macmillan Publishers Limited, 2014.
  5. Aono, Darby & Gideon Yaffe & Hedy Kober, “Neuroscientific evidence in the courtroom: a review”, Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, Vol. 4(40), 2019.
  6. Barth, Abram S., “A Double-Edged Sword: The Role of Neuroimaging in Federal Capital Sentencing”, American Journal of law & medicine, Vol. 33(2-3):501-522, 2007.
  7. Catley, Paul & Lisa Claydon, “The use of neuroscientific evidence in the courtroom by those accused of criminal offenses in England and Wales”, Journal of Law and the Biosciences, Vol. 2(3):510-549, 2015.
  8. de Kogel, C.H. & E.J.M.C. Westgeest, “Neuroscientific and behavioral genetic information in criminal cases in the Netherlands”, Journal of Law and the Biosciences, Vol. 2(3):580-605, 2015.
  9. Denno, Deborah W., “The Myth of the Double-Edged Sword: An Empirical Study of Neuroscience Evidence in Criminal Cases”, Boston College Law Review, Vol. 56(2):493-551, 2015.
  10. Doud, Nolina, Neuroimaging, Responsibility, and Law; How Neuroscientific Explanations Challenge the Fundaments of Legal Responsibility, Master Thesis, MSc Philosophy of Science, Technology, and Society – PSTS, University of Twente, 2016.
  11. Farahany, Nita A., “Neuroscience and behavioral genetics in US criminal law: an empirical analysis”, Journal of Law and the Biosciences, Vol. 2(3):485-509, 2016.
  12. Greene, Joshua & Jonathan Cohen, “For the law, neuroscience changes nothing and everything”, Philosophical Transactions of The Royal Society B Biological Sciences, Vol. 359(1451):1775-1785, The Royal Society Publishing, 2004.
  13. Ienca, Marcello & Roberto Andorno, “Towards new human rights in the age of neuroscience and neurotechnology”, Life Sciences, Society and Policy, Vol. 13(5):1-27, 2017.
  14. Klaming, Laura & Bert-Jaap Koops, “Neuroscientific Evidence and Criminal Responsibility in the Netherlands”, in: Tade Matthias Spranger (Ed.), International Neurolaw: A Comparative Analysis, 2012.
  15. Lamparello, Adam, “Using Cognitive Neuroscience to Provide a Procedure for the Involuntary Commitment of Violent Criminals as a Pat of or Following the Duration of Their Sentence (Part II of a Two-Part Series) The Model Statute”, Houston Journal of Health Law and Policy, Vol. 11(2):267-301, 2012.
  16. Morse, Stephen J., “Brain Overclaim Syndrome and Criminal Responsibility: A Diagnostic Note”, Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, Vol. 3:397-412, 2005.
  17. , “Lost in Translation? An Essay on Law and Neuroscience”, in: Michael Freeman (Ed.), Law and Neuroscience: Current Legal Issues Volume 13, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2011.
  18. , “The Non-Problem of Free Will in Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology”, Behavioral Sciences & the Law, Vol. 25(2):203-220, 2007.
  19. Pardo, Michael S. & Dennis Patterson., Minds, Brains, and Law: The Conceptual Foundations of Law and Neuroscience, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2016.
  20. Patterson, Dennis, “Criminal law, neuroscience, and voluntary acts”, Journal of Law and the Biosciences, Vol. 3(2):355-358, August 2016.
  21. Petoft, Arian & Mahmoud Abbasi., “A Historical Overview of Law and Neuroscience: From the Emergence of Medico-legal Discourses to Developed Neurolaw”, Journal of Criminal Law, Vol. 10(2), University of Rome, 2019.
  22. Picozza, Eugenio (Ed.), Neurolaw: An Introduction, 1st, New York, Springer International Publishing, 2011.
  23. Rocque, Michael & Brandon C. Welsh & Adrian Raine., “Biosocial criminology and modern crime prevention”, Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 40(4):306-312, 2012.
  24. Schweitzer, Nicholas & Michael J. Saks., “Neuroimage evidence and the insanity defense”, Behavioral Sciences & the Law, Vol. 29(4):592-607, 2011.
  25. Shen, Francis X., “The Overlooked History of Neurolaw”, Fordham Law Review, Vol. 85(2):667-695, 2016.
  26. Taylor, J. Sherrod & J. Anderson Harp & Tyron Elliott, “Neuropsychologists and Neurolawyers”, Neuropsychology, Vol. 5(4):293-305, 1991.
  27. Umbach, Rebecca & Colleen M. Berryessa & Adrian Raine, “Brain imaging research on psychopathy: Implications for punishment, prediction, and treatment in youth and adults”, Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 43(4):295-306, 2015.
  28. Yang, Yaling & Adrian Raine, “Prefrontal structural and functional brain imaging findings in antisocial, violent, and psychopathic individuals: A meta-analysis”, Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging, Vol. 174(2):81-88, 2009.

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics