Neuroscience and the Law in New Zealand

Chapter

Abstract

The New Zealand Court of Appeal has rejected evidence of neuroimaging to help juries assess the capacity of the accused in an insanity plea. This chapter says the Court of Appeal was right to do so because neuroimaging should not replace the role of the jury. The chapter explains; that neuroscience will help us better understand how the brain functions and what relationship there is between that functioning and how we make decisions. The chapter concludes that neuroscience will be helpful for insight into the human condition but cannot replace the moral choices of what we think is right or wrong or whether we should be culpable or should not be.

References

  1. Annas G (2007) Imaginaing a new era of neuroimaging, neuroethics and neurolaw. Am J Law Med 33:163–170Google Scholar
  2. Brookbanks W (2008) Neuroscience, ‘folk psychology’ and the future of criminal responsibility. New Zealand Law Rev 2008:623–637Google Scholar
  3. Choong R (2007) Free nil – reflections on freedom, neurobiology and sin. Transdisciplinarity and the unity of knowledge conference, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  4. Compton E (2010) Not guilty by reason of neuroimaging: the need for cautionary jury instructions for neuroscience evidence in criminal trials. Vanderbilt J Entertain Technol 12:333–355Google Scholar
  5. Erickson S (2010) Blaming the brain. Minnesota J Law Sci Technol 11:22–77Google Scholar
  6. Garland B, Frankel M (2006) Considering convergence: a policy dialogue about behavioural genetics, neuroscience and law. Law Contemp Probl 69:101–104Google Scholar
  7. Gazzaniga M (2005) The ethical brain. Dana Press, New York (cited in Snead O (2007) Neuroimaging and the complexity of capital punishment. NY Univ Law Rev 82:1265–1339)Google Scholar
  8. Giridharadas A (2008) India’s novel use of brain scans in court is debated. New York Times, 14 September 2008Google Scholar
  9. Grey B (2011) Neuroscience and emotional harm in tort law: rethinking the American approach to freestanding emotional distress claims. Current Legal Issues: Law and Neuroscience 13:203–229Google Scholar
  10. Jones O et al. (2009) Brain imaging for legal thinkers: a guide for the perplexed. Stanford Technol Law Rev 5 (3):1–11Google Scholar
  11. Libet B (1999) How does conscious experience arise? The neural time factor. Brain Res Bull 50:339–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Merriman T, Cameron V (2007) Risk-taking: behind the warrior gene story. New Zealand Med J 120(1250):62–67 (citing Caspi A et al. (2002) Role of genotype in the cycle of violence in maltreated children. Science 297(5582):851–854; Kim-Cohen J et al. (2006) MAOA, maltreatment, and gene environment interaction predicting children’s mental health: new evidence and a meta-analysis. Mol Psychiatry 11:903–913; Spatz-Widon C, Brzustowicz LN (2006) MAOA and the ‘cycle of violence’: childhood abuse and neglect. MAOA genotype and risk for violent and antisocial behaviour. Biol Psychiatry 60:684–681)Google Scholar
  13. Moreno J (2009) Future of neuroimaged lie detection and the Law. Univ Akron Law Rev 42:717–738Google Scholar
  14. Morse S (2004) New neuroscience, old problems. In: Garland F (ed) Neuroscience and the law – brain, mind and the scales of justice. Dana Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Morse S (2008) Neuroscience increasingly presented as evidence for trials in US Courts. Fox News, 3 March 2008 (quoted in Associated Press)Google Scholar
  16. Pardo M, Patterson D (2010) Philosophical foundations of law and neuroscience. Univ Akron Law Rev 4:1211–1250Google Scholar
  17. Perlin M (2009) His brain has been mismanaged with great skill: How will jurors respond to neuroimaging testimony in insanity defence cases. Akron Law Rev 42:885–916Google Scholar
  18. Pettit M (2007) FMRI and BF meet FRE: brain imaging and the federal rules of evidence. Am J Law Med 33:319–340Google Scholar
  19. Pockett S (2010) The concept of free will: philosophy, neuroscience and the law. Behav Sci Law 25:281–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. R v Dixon (2008) 2 NZLR 617 (CA)Google Scholar
  21. R v Porter (1933) 55 CLR 182Google Scholar
  22. Rosen J (2007) The brain on the stand. New York Times, 11 March 2007Google Scholar
  23. Shafi N (2009) Neuroscience and the law: the evidentiary value of brain imaging. Graduate Student J Psychol 11:27–39Google Scholar
  24. State v Anderson (2002) 79 S.W.3d 420 (Mo. 2002)Google Scholar
  25. United States v Erskine (1978) 588 F.2d 721 (9th Cir. 1978)Google Scholar
  26. United States v Hinckley (1981) 525 F. Supp. 1324 (D.D.C. 1981)Google Scholar
  27. Waldbauer J, Gazzaniga M (2001) The divergence of neuroscience and law. Jurimetrics 41:357–364Google Scholar
  28. Yang Y et al (2008) Brain abnormalities in antisocial individuals: implications for the law. Behav Sci Law 26:65–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of LawUniversity of OtagoDunedinNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations