IJSTR

International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research

Home About Us Scope Editorial Board Blog/Latest News Contact Us
0.2
2019CiteScore
 
10th percentile
Powered by  Scopus
Scopus coverage:
Nov 2018 to May 2020

CALL FOR PAPERS
AUTHORS
DOWNLOADS
CONTACT

IJSTR >> Volume 9 - Issue 2, February 2020 Edition



International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research  
International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research

Website: http://www.ijstr.org

ISSN 2277-8616



A Review Of Neurolaw And Its Contribution To The Judiciary

[Full Text]

 

AUTHOR(S)

Arun Verma, Dr. A.B Kafaltiya, Dr. Desh Deepak Singh, Piyush, Dr. Shivani Sharma, Dr. Pankaj Srivastava

 

KEYWORDS

Brain Imaging, Freewill, Law, Neurolaw, Neuroscience.

 

ABSTRACT

Neurolaw is an interdisciplinary research program which aims not only to re-examine the axioms of law but also to enrich it in term of methodology and evidence. Although historically there are cases of application of neuroscience in the legal sphere, rapid growth has been recorded only after 1990. The radical debate in the field is between two perspectives i.e. neuroscience will show that we don’t have free will and this will lead to non-assignment of responsibility for actions including legal one and secondly, that neuroscience will show that humans have free will and thus there will be no changes in the legal system. In, this paper we will migrate from these theoretical arguments, to access the infield contribution of neuroscience to the legal system i.e. neurolaw.

 

REFERENCES

[1] Law and Cognitive Neuroscience, Annual Review of Law and Social Science. 6: 61–92. doi:10.1146/ annurev. lawsocsci.093008.131523
[2] Ariely D, Berns GS (2010) Neuromarketing: the hope and hype of neuroimaging in business. Nat Rev Neurosci 11:284-292
[3] Assaf Y, Pasternak O (2008) Diffusion tensor imaging (DTI)-based white matter mapping in brain research: a review. J Mol Neurosci 34(1)51-61
[4] Petoft A. Neurolaw: A brief introduction. Iran J Neurol 2015; 14(1): 53-8.
[5] Bear MF, Connors BW, Paradiso MA. Neuroscience. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2007. pp. 4–22.
[6] Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579, 113 S. Ct. 2786, 125 L. Ed. 2d 469, 1993 U.S.
[7] Kiehl KA, Smith A, Mendrek A, Forster B, Hare RD, Liddle P (2004) Temporal lobe abnormalities in semantic processing by criminal psychopaths as revealed by functional magnetic resonance imaging, psychiatry Res 130:297-312
[8] Logothetis NK (2008) what we can do and what we cannot do with fMRI. Nature 453:869-878.
[9] Polikar R, Tilley C, Hills B, Clark CM (2010) Multimodal EEG, MRI and PET data fusion for Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis. Conference Proceedings: IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, pp. 6058-6061.
[10] Edmond G, Biber K, Kemp R, Porter G (2008) Law’s looking glass: expert identification evidence derived from photographic and video images. Curr Issues Crim Justice 20:37-77.
[11] Mayberg H (2010) Does neuroscience gives us new insights into criminal responsibility? A Judge’s guide to neuroscience: a concise introduction. University of California, Berkeley, pp 37-51.
[12] Church, D. (2011). Neuroscience in the courtroom: an international concern. Wm. Mary L. Rev. 53, 1825–1854.
[13] State of Maharashtra v Sharma, No. 508/07 (Court of Sessions, June 12, 2008)
[14] Bles, M., and Haynes, J. (2008). Detecting concealed information using brain-imaging technology. Neurocase 14, 82–92. doi: 10.1080/13554790801992784
[15] Brown, T., and Murphy, E. (2010). Through a scanner darkly: functional neuroimaging as evidence of a criminal defendant's past mental states. Stanf. Law Rev. 62, 1119–1208.
[16] Brain Electrical Oscillation Signature Profiling (BEOSP or BEOS) is an EEG technique by which a suspect's participation in a crime is detected by eliciting electrophysiological impulses
[17] Bernstein, D., and Jackson, J. (2004). The Daubert trilogy in the states. Jurimetrics 44, 351–366.
[18] Alexander, A. (2007). Functional magnetic resonance imaging lie detection: is a brainstorm headed for the gatekeeper? Houst. J. Health L. Policy 7, 1–56.
[19] Davatzikos, C., Ruparel, K., Fan, Y., Shen, D. G., Acharyya, M., Loughead, J. W., et al. (2005). Classifying spatial patterns of brain activity with machine learning methods: Application to lie detection. NeuroImage 28, 663–668. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.08.009
[20] Ghiridharadas, A. (2008). India's novel use of brain scans in court is debated. New York Times 14:A10.
[21] Garland, B., and Glimcher, P. (2006). Cognitive neuroscience and the law. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 16, 130–134. doi: 10.1016/j.conb.2006.03.011
[22] Ganis, G., Rosenfield, J. P., Meixner, J., Kievit, R. A., and Schendan, H. E. (2011). Lying in the scanner: covert countermeasures disrupt deception detection by functional magnetic resonance imaging. Neuroimage 55, 312–319. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.11.025
[23] Giordano, J., Kulkarni, A., and Farwell, J. (2014b). Deliver us from evil? The temptation, realities, and neuroethico-legal issues of employing assessment neurotechnologies in public safety initiatives. Theor. Med. Bioeth. 35, 73–89. doi: 10.1007/s11017-014-9278-4
[24] Giordano, J. (2015c). Conditions for consent to the use of neurotechnology: a preparatory neuroethical approach to risk assessment and reduction. Am. J. Bioethics Neurosci. 6, 12–14. doi: 10.1080/21507740.2015.1094557
[25] Greely, H. (2006). “The social effects of advances in neurosciences: legal problems, legal perspectives,” in Neuroethics: Defining the Issues in Theory, Practice, and Policy, ed J. Illes (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 245–264.
[26] Jones, O. D., Wagner, A. D., Faigman, D. L., and Raichle, M. E. (2013). Neuroscientists in court. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 14, 730–736. doi: 10.1038/nrn3585
[27] Illes, J. (2007). Empirical neuroethics. EMBO Rep. 8, S57–S60. doi: 10.1038/sj.embor.7401007
[28] Huth, A., Lee, T., Nishimoto, S., Bilenko, N. Y., Vu, A., and Gallant, J. (2016). Decoding the semantic content of natural movies from human brain activity. Front. Syst. Neurosci. 10:81. doi: 10.3389/fnsys.2016.00081
[29] Goodenough, O., and Tucker, M. (2011). Neuroscience basics for lawyers. Mercer Law Rev. 62, 945–959.
[30] Corlett, Philip R., Garry D. Honey, Michael R.F. Aitken, Anthony Dickinson, David R. Shanks, Anthony R. Absalom, Michael Lee, Edith Pomarol-Clotet, Graham K. Murray, Peter J. McKenna, W. Trevor, Edward T.Bullmore Robbins, and Paul C. Fletcher. 2006. Frontal responses during learning predict vulnerability to the psychotogenic effects of ketamine: Linking cognition, brain activity, and psychosis. Archives of General Psychiatry 63: 611–621.
[31] Church, D. J. (2012). Neuroscience in the Courtroom: An International Concern. William & Mary Law Review, 53(5), 1825–1854.
[32] Levy, Neil. 2007. Rethinking neuroethics in the light of the extended mind thesis. The American Journal of Bioethics 7: 3–11
[33] Corlett, Philip R., Graham K. Murray, Garry D. Honey, Michael R.F. Aitken, David R. Shanks, Trevor W. Robbins, Edward T. Bullmore, Anthony Dickinson, and Paul C. Fletcher. 2007. Disrupted prediction-error signal in psychosis: Evidence for an associative account of delusions. Brain 130: 2387–2400.
[34] Hohwy, Jakob. 2010. The hypothesis testing brain: Some philosophical implications. In ASCS09: Proceedings of the 9th conference of the Australasian Society for Cognitive Science, ed. Wayne Christensen, Elizabeth Schier, and John Sutton, 135–144. Sydney: Macquarie Centre for Cognitive Science.
[35] Pardo, Michael S., and Dennis Patterson. 2013. Minds, brains and law: The conceptual foundations of law and neuroscience. New York: Oxford University Press.
[36] Vihvelin, Kadri. 2004. Free will demystified: A dispositional account. In Philosophical Topics 32: 427–450.
[37] Shea, Nicholas, and Tim Bayne. 2010. The vegetative state and the science of consciousness. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 61: 459–484.
[38] Yaffe, Gideon. 2013. Are addicts akratic? Interpreting the neuroscience of reward. In Addiction and self-control: Perspectives from philosophy, psychology, and neuroscience, ed. Neil