The Journal of Ethics

, Volume 18, Issue 2, pp 153–170 | Cite as

The Limitations and Potential of Neuroimaging in the Criminal Law

  • Walter Glannon


Neuroimaging showing brain abnormalities is increasingly being introduced in criminal court proceedings to argue that a defendant could not control his behavior and should not be held responsible for it. But imaging has questionable probative value because it does not directly capture brain function or a defendant’s mental states at the time of a criminal act. Advanced techniques could transform imaging from a coarse-grained measure of correlations between brain states and behavior to a fine-grained measure of causal connections between them. Even if this occurs, bias and other attitudes may unduly influence jurors’ interpretation of the data. Moreover, judges’ decisions about whether neuroimaging data is legally relevant and admissible are normative decisions based on more than empirical evidence. Advanced neuroimaging will better inform assessments of criminal responsibility but will not supplant or explain away the psychological and normative foundation of the criminal law.


Admissibility Bias Criminal responsibility Empirical judgment Neuroimaging Normative judgment Probative value 


  1. Aharoni, E., G. Vincent, C. Harenski, et al. 2013. Neuroprediction of future arrest. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110: 6223–6228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amodio, D., and C. Frith. 2006. Meeting of the minds: the medial frontal cortex and social cognition. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 7: 268–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berlin, L. 2014. Neuroimgaing, expert witnesses, and ethics: convergence and conflict in the courtroom. AJOB Neuroscience 5(2): 3–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blair, R.James. 2003. Neurobiological basis of psychopathy. British Journal of Psychiatry 182: 5–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blair, R.James. 2013. The neurobiology of psychopathic traits in youths. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 14: 786–799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burns, J., and R. Swerdlow. 2003. Right orbitofrontal tumor with pedophilia symptom and constructional apraxia sign. Archives of Neurology 62: 437–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Casey, B., N. Craddock, B. Cuthbert et al. 2013. DSM-5 and RDoC: progress in psychiatry research? Nature Reviews Neuroscience 14: 810–814.Google Scholar
  8. Cima, M., F. Tonnaer, and M. Hauser. 2010. Psychopaths know right from wrong but don’t care. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience 5: 59–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals. 1993. 516 US 869.Google Scholar
  10. Freeman, M. (ed.). 2011. Law and Neuroscience: Current Legal Issues,, vol. 13. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Frye v. United States. 1923. 293 F. 1013, D.C. Cir.Google Scholar
  12. Greely, H. 2013. Mind reading, neuroscience, and the law. In Morse and Roskies, 120–149.Google Scholar
  13. Gregory, S., D. ffytche, A. Simmons, et al. 2012. The antisocial brain: psychopathy matters. Archives of General Psychiatry 69: 962–972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hughes, V. 2010. Science in court: head case. Nature 464: 340–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Insel, T., B. Cuthbert, and M. Garvey. 2010. Research Doman Criteria (RDoC): toward a new classification framework for research on mental disorders. American Journal of Psychiatry 164: 748–751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jones, O., A. Wagner, D. Faigman, and M. Raichle. 2013. Neuroscientists in court. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 14: 730–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lacy, J., and C. Stark. 2013. The neuroscience of memory: implications for the courtroom. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 14: 649–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Little, J., and A. Carter. 2012. Subcellular synaptic connectivity of layer 2 pyramidal neurons in the medial prefrontal cortex. Journal of Neuroscience 32: 12808–12819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. M’Naghten’s Case. 1843. 8 Eng. Rep. 718, 722.Google Scholar
  20. Mobbs, D., H. Lau, O. Jones, and C. Frith. 2007. Law, responsibility, and the brain. PLoS Biology 5(4): e103. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0050103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Model Penal Code. 1985. Philadelphia: American Law Institute. Official Draft and Revised Comments.Google Scholar
  22. Morse, S. 2008. Psychopathy and Criminal Responsibility. Neuroethics 1(3): 205–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Morse, S. 2011. Lost in translation? an essay on law and neuroscience. In Freeman, 529–562.Google Scholar
  24. Morse, S. 2013. Common criminal law compatibilism. In Vincent (2013b), 27–52.Google Scholar
  25. Morse, S., and Newsome, W. 2013. Criminal responsibility, criminal competence, and prediction of criminal behavior. In Morse and Roskies (2013), 150–178.Google Scholar
  26. Morse, S., and A. Roskies (eds.). 2013. A Primer on Criminal Law and Neuroscience. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Morse, S. 2014. Brain imaging in the courtroom: the quest for legal relevance. AJOB Neuroscience 5(2): 24–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Paus, T., M. Keshavan, and J. Giedd. 2008. Why do many psychiatric disorders emerge during adolescence? Nature Reviews Neuroscience 9: 947–957.Google Scholar
  29. Poldrack, R. 2011. Inferring mental states from neuroimaging data from reverse inference to large-scale decoding. Neuron 72: 692–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rogers, K. 2013. Grandmother charged in death of Milton, Ont. toddler left alone in hot car. Globe and Mail July 5.
  31. Roper v. Simmons. 2005. 543 U.S. 551.Google Scholar
  32. Roskies, A. 2013. Brain imaging techniques. In Morse and Roskies (2013), 37–74.Google Scholar
  33. Roskies, A and Morse, S. 2013. Neuroscience and the law: looking forward. In Morse and Roskies, 240–256.Google Scholar
  34. Roskies, A. and Sinnott-Armstrong, W. 2011. Brain images as evidence in the criminal law. In Freeman, 97–114.Google Scholar
  35. Rutter, M. 2013. Biomarkers: potential and challenges. In Singh, Sinnott-Armstrong, and Savulescu, 188–205.Google Scholar
  36. Schacter, D., and E. Loftus. 2013. Memory and law: what can cognitive neuroscience contribute? Nature Neuroscience 16: 119–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schauer, F. 2009. Neuroscience, lie-detection, and the law. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 14: 101–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schweitzer, N., and M. Saks. 2011. Neuroimaging evidence and the insanity defense. Behavioral Sciences and the Law 29: 592–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Singh, I., W. Sinnott-Armstrong, and J. Savulescu (eds.). 2013. Bioprediction, Biomarkers, and Bad Behavior. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Tabery, J. 2012. The double-edged sword: does biomechanism increase or decrease judges’ sentencing of psychopaths? Science 337: 846–849.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tulving, E., and F. Craik. 2005. Oxford Handbook of Memory. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Viding E. and McCrory E. 2013. Genetic biomarker research of callous-unemotional traits in children: implications for the law and policy making. In Singh, Sinnott-Armstrong, and Savulescu (2013), 153–172.Google Scholar
  43. Vincent, N. 2011. Neuroimaging and responsibility assessments. Neuroethics 4(1): 35–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Vincent, N. 2013a. Law and neuroscience: historical context, in Vincent (2013b), 1–24.Google Scholar
  45. Vincent, N. (ed.). 2013b. Neuroscience and Legal Responsibility. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Watrous, A., T. Nitin, C. Conner, et al. 2013. Frequency-specific network connectivity increases underlie accurate spatiotemporal memory retrieval. Nature Neuroscience 16: 349–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of CalgaryCalgaryCanada

Personalised recommendations