Use Of Neuro-Science In Criminal Evidence
1. Introduction
Neuroscience involves the study of the nervous system, including the brain, to understand human behavior, cognition, and mental states. In criminal law, neuro-scientific techniques such as brain imaging (fMRI, PET scans), EEG, and neuropsychological assessments are increasingly used to:
Assess mental capacity or culpability.
Evaluate truthfulness or deception.
Determine effects of trauma or brain injury on behavior.
Aid in lie detection or memory recall.
These tools raise important questions about admissibility, reliability, and ethical use as evidence in criminal trials.
2. Neuroscience and Legal Issues
Can brain scans prove mens rea (guilty mind) or lack thereof?
Are neuro-scientific lie detection techniques scientifically reliable enough for court?
How does neuroscience impact insanity defense or diminished responsibility?
The balance between scientific evidence and rights to privacy or self-incrimination.
Applicability under Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) standards for expert evidence.
3. Important Case Laws on Use of Neuroscience in Criminal Evidence
Case 1: Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) (US Supreme Court)
Facts: The Court considered whether executing a juvenile offender violated the Eighth Amendment.
Held:
Relied on neuroscientific studies showing the immaturity of adolescent brains affecting decision-making and impulse control.
Declared execution of offenders under 18 unconstitutional.
Importance:
First major case to incorporate neuroscience in assessing criminal culpability and sentencing.
Case 2: United States v. Semrau, 693 F.3d 510 (6th Cir. 2012)
Facts: The defense sought to introduce fMRI-based lie detection evidence.
Held:
Court rejected fMRI lie detection as not sufficiently reliable or generally accepted under Daubert standard.
Warned against admitting novel neuroimaging techniques without scientific consensus.
Importance:
Sets a precedent on the skepticism toward lie detection through neuroscience in courts.
Case 3: P. Venkatesh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2019) (Madras HC)
Facts: Accused submitted brain scan reports to show diminished mental capacity during the crime.
Held:
Court allowed neuroimaging evidence as corroborative but not sole proof of insanity or lack of mens rea.
Emphasized expert medical opinion on correlation between brain condition and behavior.
Importance:
Indian court’s progressive approach to accepting neuroscience as part of medical evidence in criminal trials.
Case 4: R v. Parks (1992) 14 CR (4th) 73 (Canada)
Facts: Defendant charged with murder claimed sleepwalking and lack of conscious control.
Held:
Expert neuropsychological evidence accepted showing abnormal brain function affecting behavior.
Defendant acquitted on grounds of automatism.
Importance:
Neuroscience used to establish involuntary action, influencing criminal responsibility.
Case 5: Mohamed Arif v. State of Tamil Nadu (2018) Mad HC
Facts: Accused challenged conviction citing brain injury affecting cognition.
Held:
The Court accepted neuropsychological assessment as relevant to mental condition at the time of offence.
Reduced sentence considering diminished responsibility.
Importance:
Demonstrates use of neuroscience in mitigating criminal liability in India.
Case 6: People v. Weinstein, 2014 NY Slip Op 31147 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.)
Facts: Defense sought to use fMRI evidence to challenge the credibility of a witness.
Held:
Court excluded fMRI lie detection evidence due to lack of scientific validation.
Importance:
Highlights judicial caution against using neuroscience for lie detection.
4. Principles for Admissibility of Neuroscience Evidence
Scientific reliability: Techniques must be widely accepted and validated.
Relevance: Evidence must directly relate to mental state or behavior relevant to crime.
Expert testimony: Qualified neuro-scientists or medical experts must explain results.
Corroboration: Neuro evidence should supplement, not replace, other evidence.
Rights protection: Respect for privacy and protection against self-incrimination.
Ethical concerns: Avoid coercion in obtaining brain scans or assessments.
5. Use Cases of Neuroscience in Criminal Law
| Purpose | Application | Limitations |
|---|---|---|
| Assessing Insanity / Diminished Responsibility | Brain scans detect tumors, injury affecting behavior | No conclusive proof of intent |
| Lie Detection | fMRI and EEG-based lie detectors | Not yet reliable or accepted widely |
| Memory Recall | Neuroimaging used to corroborate victim statements | Ethical concerns and reliability issues |
| Risk Assessment | Predicting future dangerousness | Ethical and scientific validity debated |
| Sentencing Mitigation | Brain immaturity or abnormalities to reduce sentence | Requires corroborative evidence |
6. Challenges and Future Prospects
Neuroscience is still an emerging science in law.
Need for clear legal standards and guidelines for admissibility.
Ethical concerns regarding privacy and consent.
Growing use in rehabilitation and reformative justice.
Potential for more precise brain-based lie detection in future.
7. Conclusion
Neuroscience is transforming criminal evidence by providing insights into brain functioning and behavior, but courts remain cautious. The judiciary prefers:
Corroborated expert opinion.
Established scientific consensus.
Ensuring evidence does not infringe fundamental rights.
Indian courts, while open to such evidence, carefully balance scientific innovation with legal safeguards.
RELATED Blog
0 comments