Abstract
Forensic “neuroprediction” has caused vivid discussions on potential uses of neuropredictive models of violence as indicators of future dangerous behaviour. One of the relevant concerns is related to the potentially prejudicial and unduly persuasive nature of neuroscientific data. A key question is the way in which neuroscientific evidence is perceived and evaluated by judges and juries. Aiming to explore this issue, we present the results of a pilot study with focus groups bringing together all professionals involved in criminal trials (judges, defence lawyers, experts—neurologists and psychiatrists), in order to elicit their perceptions on uses of neurobiological data in criminal trials, in the context of a psychiatric expertise and to detect potential bias on behalf of the judges concerning the use of neurobiological data.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
Others suggest that neuroscience evidence is more likely to have a prejudicial effect when structural neuroimaging techniques are used as evidence in court: structural abnormalities are more likely to influence judgements and mitigate punishment decisions than functional abnormalities, as the latter have less causal potency than the structural ones. See Choe, S. Y. (2014). Misdiagnosing the impact of neuroimages in the courtroom. UCLA Law Review, 61, 1502–1548.
- 2.
The research was funded as a project by the Greek State Scholarships Foundation (IKY): Gkotsi Georgia Martha, “Criminal treatment of mentally ill offenders in the age of neuroscience: uses of neuroscientific data in psychiatric expert opinions” 2016–2018.
- 3.
Judges were asked to generally comment on the increasing tendency to introduce behavioural genetics and neuroimaging techniques in attempts to exculpate criminal defendants and to mitigate defendants’ culpability and punishment. Questions/issues for discussion also included recent trial cases in the context of which neuroimaging techniques were used as evidence in a criminal court, as well as studies which explored uses of recent developments in neuroscience in order to improve predictions about an individual’s risk of (re-)engaging in antisocial conduct.
- 4.
We employ the term “neuroscientific data” as a generic term including general information derived from published neurobiological studies, related to the relationship between brain and behaviour, as well as data obtained from brain imaging techniques. These techniques can be either structural (magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computerized axial tomography (CAT)), or functional, such as electroencephalogram (EEG), functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), Positron Emission Tomography (PET) and Single-Photon Emission Computed Tomography (SPECT).
- 5.
In an inquisitorial criminal justice system, procedural guarantees serve a different conceptual logic than adversarial systems, i.e. a conceptual priority has to be given to requirements concerning the ‘quality’ of the non-partisan state official expert (Decaigny, 2014). Experts must have previously acquired knowledge and skills that allow them to fulfil their mission and to be appointed by judges. In Greece, a country of inquisitorial system, experts are registered in official lists of experts, are commissioned by investigating judges and prosecutors and cannot be commissioned by the defence or the civil parties.
- 6.
According to part of the scientific literature, MAOA-uVNTR polymorphism points to a “genetic vulnerability” thought to predispose the subject to exhibiting aggressiveness when challenged or excluded socially, see Caspi, A., McClay, J., Moffitt, T. E., Mill, J., Martin, J., Craig, I. W., & Taylor, A. (2002). Poulton R. Role of genotype in the cycle of violence in maltreated children. Science, 297(5582), 851–854.
References
Abbiati, M., Azzola, A., Palix, J., Gasser, J., & Moulin, V. (2017). Validity and predictive accuracy of the structured assessment of protective factors for violence risk in criminal forensic evaluations: A Swiss cross-validation retrospective study. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 44(4), 493–510.
Aggarwal, N. K. (2009). Neuroimaging, culture, and forensic psychiatry. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online, 37(2), 239–244.
Aharoni, E., Vincent, G. M., Harenski, C. L., Calhoun, V. D., Sinnott-Armstrong, W., Gazzaniga, M. S., & Kiehl, K. A. (2013). Neuroprediction of future rearrest. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(15), 6223–6228.
Androulakis Ν. (1973). The expert—Psychiatrist in criminal trial. Poinika Chronika ΚΓ΄, 327.
Barth, A. S. (2007). Double-edged sword: The role of neuroimaging in federal capital sentencing. American Journal of Law & Medicine, 33, 501–522.
Bedard, H. L. (2017). The Potential for bioprediction in criminal law. Science and Technology Law Review, 18.
Bonta, J., & Wormith, S. J. (2008). Risk and need assessment. In G. McIvor & P. Raynor (Eds.), Developments in social work with offenders (pp. 131–152). London, UK: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
Brown, T., & Murphy, E. (2009). Through a scanner darkly: Functional neuroimaging as evidence of a criminal defendant's past mental states. Stan. L. Rev., 62, 1119.
Byk, C. (2012). Justice et expertise scientifique: Un dialogue organisé dont il faut renouveler les fondements. In O. Oullier (Ed.), Le cerveau et la loi: analyse de l’émergence du neurodroit (pp. 151–167). Paris: Département Questions sociales, Centre d’analyse stratégique.
Calcedo-Barba, A. (2006). The ethical implications of forensic psychiatry practice. World Psychiatry, 5(2), 93–94.
Canguilhem, G. (1966). Le normal et le pathologique. PUF.
Castel, R. (1991). From dangerousness to risk. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon, & P. Miller (Eds.), The foucault effect: Studies in governmentality (pp. 281–298). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Cheung, B. Y., & Heine, S. J. (2015). The double-edged sword of genetic accounts of criminality: Causal attributions from genetic ascriptions affect legal decision making. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(12), 1723–1738.
Crommelinck, M. (1995). Quand la trace des souvenirs se dévoile au fond d’une coupelle. À propos du réductionnisme et des neurosciences. Revue philosophique de Louvain, 93(1), 140–175.
Decaigny, T. (2014). Inquisitorial and adversarial expert examinations in the case law of the European court of human rights. New Journal of European Criminal Law, 5(2), 149–166.
Delfin, C., Krona, H., Andiné, P., Ryding, E., Wallinius, M., & Hofvander, B. (2019). Prediction of recidivism in a long-term follow-up of forensic psychiatric patients: Incremental effects of neuroimaging data. PloS ONE, 14(5).
Denno, D. W. (2015). The myth of the double-edged sword: An empirical study of neuroscience evidence in criminal cases. Boston College Law Review, 56, 493.
Douglas, T., Pugh, J., Singh, I., Savulescu, J., & Fazel, S. (2017). Risk assessment tools in criminal justice and forensic psychiatry: The need for better data. European Psychiatry, 42, 134–137.
Eastman, N., & Campbell, C. (2006). Neuroscience and legal determination of criminal responsibility. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 7(4), 311–318.
Farah, M. J., & Hook, C. J. (2013). The seductive allure of “seductive allure.” Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(1), 88–90.
Farahany, N. A., & Coleman, J. E., Jr. (2009). Genetics, neuroscience, and criminal responsibility. In N. A. Farahany (Ed.), The impact of behavioral sciences on criminal law (pp. 183–240). New York: Oxford University Press.
Fazel, S., Singh, J. P., Doll, H., & Grann, M. (2012). Use of risk assessment instruments to predict violence and antisocial behaviour in 73 samples involving 24 827 people: Systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ, 345, e4692.
Friend, A. (2003). Keeping criticism at bay: Suggestions for forensic psychiatry experts. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online, 31(4), 406–412.
Fuchs, T. (2006). Ethical issues in neuroscience. Current Opinion in Psychiatry 19(6), 600–607.
Fuss, J., Dressing, H., & Briken, P. (2015). Neurogenetic evidence in the courtroom: A randomised controlled trial with German judges. Journal of Medical Genetics, 52(11), 730–737.
Gaudet, L. M., Kerkmans, J. P., Anderson, N. E., & Kiehl, K. A. (2016). Can neuroscience help predict future antisocial behavior. Fordham Law Review, 85, 503.
Gkotsi, G. M., & Gasser, J. (2016). Neuroscience in forensic psychiatry: From responsibility to dangerousness. Ethical and legal implications of using neuroscience for dangerousness assessments. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 46, 58–67.
Gkotsi, G. M., Gasser, J., & Moulin, V. (2019). Neuroimaging in criminal trials and the role of psychiatrists expert witnesses: A case study. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 65, 101359.
Greely, H. T., & Farahany, N. A. (2019). Neuroscience and the criminal justice system. Annual Review of Criminology.
Gruber, D., & Dickerson, J. A. (2012). Persuasive images in popular science: Testing judgments of scientific reasoning and credibility. Public Understanding of Science, 21(8), 938–948.
Gurley, J. R., & Marcus, D. K. (2008). The effects of neuroimaging and brain injury on insanity defenses. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 26(1), 85–97.
Kaiafa-Gbandi, Μ. (1983). Should findings from expert opinions be binding for criminal courts? Armenopoulos 1983: 1046 (in Greek).
Kiehl, K. A., Anderson, N. E., Aharoni, E., Maurer, J. M., Harenski, K. A., Rao, V., … & Kosson, D. (2018). Age of gray matters: Neuroprediction of recidivism. NeuroImage: Clinical, 19, 813–823.
Kitzinger, J. (1995). Qualitative Research: Introducing Focus Groups. BMJ, 311(7000), 299–302.
Konstantinides Α. (2009). Αddiction and expert opinion. Probative value of the expert opinion. In Criminality and Rule of Law (Nomiki Vivliothiki, Ed.).
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2010). Focus group interviewing. In J. S. Wholey, H. P. Hatry, & K. E. Newcomer (Eds.), Handbook of practical program evaluation (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kulynych, J. (1997). Psychiatric neuroimaging evidence: A high-tech crystal ball? Stanford Law Review, 1249–1270.
Lambert, S. D., & Loiselle, C. G. (2008). Combining individual interviews and focus groups to enhance data richness. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(2), 228–237.
McCabe, D. P., & Castel, A. D. (2008). Seeing is believing: The effect of brain images on judgments of scientific reasoning. Cognition, 107(1), 343–352.
Merton, R. K. (1987). The focussed interview and focus groups: Continuities and discontinuities. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 51(4), 550–566.
Michael, R. B., Newman, E. J., Vuorre, M., Cumming, G., & Garry, M. (2013). On the (non) persuasive power of a brain image. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20(4), 720–725.
Morgan, D. L. (1996a). Focus groups as qualitative research (Vol. 16). Sage.
Morgan, D. L. (1996b). Focus groups. Annual Review of Sociology, 22(1), 129–152.
Morse, S. (2015). Neuroprediction: New technology, old problems. In Bioethica Forum (Vol. 8, p. 128).
Moulin, V., Mouchet, C., Pillonel, T., Gkotsi, G. M., Baertschi, B., Gasser, J., & Testé, B. (2018). Judges’ perceptions of expert reports: The effect of neuroscience evidence. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 61, 22–29.
Munro, G. D., & Munro, C. A. (2014). “Soft” versus “hard” psychological science: Biased evaluations of scientific evidence that threatens or supports a strongly held political identity. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 36(6), 533–543.
Nadelhoffer, T., & Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (2012). Neurolaw and neuroprediction: Potential promises and perils. Philosophy Compass, 7(9), 631–642.
Nadelhoffer, T., Bibas, S., Grafton, S., Kiehl, K. A., Mansfield, A., Sinnott-Armstrong, W., & Gazzaniga, M. (2012). Neuroprediction, violence, and the law: Setting the stage. Neuroethics, 5(1), 67–99.
Paraskevopoulos, N., & Kosmatos, K., (2013). Drugs: Interpretation by article of the criminal and procedural provisions of the “Addictive Substances Act”, ed. Sakkoulas (3rd ed.) (in Greek).
Petersen, T. S. (2014). neuropredictions. The Journal of Ethics, 18, 137–151.
Philips, R. (2012). Predicting the risk of future dangerousness. Virtual Mentor, 14(6), 472–476.
Poldrack, R. A., Monahan, J., Imrey, P. B., Reyna, V., Raichle, M. E., Faigman, D., & Buckholtz, J. W. (2018). Predicting violent behavior: What can neuroscience add? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22(2), 111–123.
Pratt, J. (2001). Dangerosité, risque et technologies du pouvoir. Criminologie, 101–121.
Quinsey, V. L., Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., & Cormier, C. A. (2006). Criticisms of actuarial risk assessment. In V. L. Quinsey, G. T. Harris, M. E. Rice, & C. A. Cormier (Eds.), The law and public policy. Violent offenders: Appraising and managing risk (pp. 197–223). American Psychological Association.
Raine, A. (2013). The psychopathology of crime: Criminal behavior as a clinical disorder. Elsevier.
Redding, R. E. (2006). The brain-disordered defendant: Neuroscience and legal insanity in the twenty-first century. American University Law Review, 56, 51.
Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., Nicholls, C. M., & Ormston, R. (Eds.). (2013). Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers. Sage.
Roskies, A. L., Schweitzer, N. J., & Saks, M. J. (2013). Neuroimages in court: Less biasing than feared. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17(3), 99–101.
Schweitzer, N. J., Baker, D. A., & Risko, E. F. (2013). Fooled by the brain: Re-examining the influence of neuroimages. Cognition, 129(3), 501–511.
Schweitzer, N. J., Saks, M. J., Murphy, E. R., Roskies, A. L., Sinnott-Armstrong, W., & Gaudet, L. M. (2011). Neuroimages as evidence in a mens rea defense: No impact. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 17(3), 357.
Shen, F. X., Twedell, E., Opperman, C., Krieg, J. D. S., Brandt-Fontaine, M., Preston, J., ... & Carlson, M. (2017). The limited effect of electroencephalography memory recognition evidence on assessments of defendant credibility. Journal of Law and the Biosciences.
Silva, J. A. (2006). The relevance of neuroscience to forensic psychiatry. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online, 35(1), 6–9.
Silva, J. A. (2007). The relevance of neuroscience to forensic psychiatry. Journal—American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 35(1), 6.
Simonton, D. K. (2009). Varieties of (scientific) creativity: A hierarchical model of domain-specific disposition, development, and achievement. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(5), 441–452.
Simpson, J. R. (Ed.). (2012). Neuroimaging in forensic psychiatry: From the clinic to the courtroom. Chichester, West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Weisberg, D. S., Keil, F. C., Goodstein, J., Rawson, E., & Gray, J. R. (2008). The seductive allure of neuroscience explanations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20(3), 470–477.
Witzel, J. (2012). Implications of neuroimaging for dangerousness assessment. In J. R. Simpson (Ed.), Neuroimaging in forensic psychiatry: From the clinic to the courtroom (pp. 195–200). Chichester, West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank judges and doctors who participated in this research.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Gkotsi, G.M. (2021). Νeuroscience and Dangerousness Evaluations: The Effect of Neuroscience Evidence on Judges. Findings from a Focus Group Study. In: Ligthart, S., van Toor, D., Kooijmans, T., Douglas, T., Meynen, G. (eds) Neurolaw. Palgrave Studies in Law, Neuroscience, and Human Behavior. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69277-3_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69277-3_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-69276-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-69277-3
eBook Packages: Behavioral Science and PsychologyBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)