Neuroscience and Law: Australia

Chapter

Abstract

The Australian legal system has not been receptive to new neuroscientific technology. Current case law and legislative provisions demonstrate the hurdles imposed by the rigorous admissibility standards.

References

  1. Aldrich J (1995) Correlations genuine and spurious in Pearson and Yule. Stat Sci 10(4):364–376, 1Google Scholar
  2. ANU Law Department (2010) Components of criminal offences: mens rea. Aust Natl Univ. http://law.anu.edu.au/criminet/notes.html. Accessed September 2010
  3. Ashworth A (2002) Responsibilities, rights and restorative justice. Br J Criminol 42(3):578–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baker G (2009) Neuroscience and the law: real potential with a healthy dose of caution. West Virginia Law Rev:3(2)Google Scholar
  5. Batts S (2009) Brain lesions and their implications in criminal responsibility. Behav Sci Law 27:261–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. FE Bloom (2010) Does neuroscience give us new insights into drug addiction? A judge’s guide to neuroscience: a concise introduction, vol 1. University of California, Berkeley, pp 42–44Google Scholar
  7. Briody M (2004) The effects of DNA evidence on homicide cases in court. Aust N Z J Criminol 37:231–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown T, Murphy E (2010) Through a scanner darkly: functional neuroimaging as evidence of a criminal defendant’s past mental states. Stanford Law Rev 62(4):1119–1130Google Scholar
  9. Caudill DS (2010) Expert scientific testimony in courts: the ideal and illusion of value-free science. The Pantaneto Forum:39. Accessed at: http://www.pantaneto.co.uk/issue39/caudill.htm
  10. Chen I (2009) The court will now call its expert witness: the brain. Stanford Lawyer 81:1Google Scholar
  11. Cournos F, Bavaniss DL (2003) Clinical education and treatment planning: a multimodal approach. In: (Wiley) (June 9, 2003). Tasman A, Kay J, Lieberman JA (eds) Psychiatry, vol 478, 2nd ednGoogle Scholar
  12. Dickson K, McMahon M (2005) Will the law come running? The potential role of ‘brain fingerprinting’ in crime investigation and adjudication in Australia. JLM 13:204Google Scholar
  13. Doidge N (2009) Science writer Norman Doidge’s right brain quizzes his left brain about their newly discovered elasticity. The Australian. http://www.fastforword.com.au/Content_Common/ns-Dr-Norman-Doidge-Speaks-to-The-Australian-about-Brain-Plasticity.seo. Accessed 16 May 2009
  14. Easteal PW, Easteal S (1990) The forensic use of DNA profiling. Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, vol. 26. Australian Institute of Criminology, Canberra. Accessed at: http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/currentseries/tandi/21-40/tandi26.aspx
  15. 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 20:37–77Google Scholar
  16. Farwell L (1999) Farwell brain fingerprinting: a new paradigm in criminal investigations. Brain fingerprinting laboratory Inc: see http://www.brainwavescience.com/. Accessed 17 February 2011
  17. Fodor J (2003) Hume variations. Oxford University Press, New York, p 134Google Scholar
  18. Freckleton I, Selby H (2009) Expert evidence: law, practice, procedure and advocacy, 4th edn. Lawbook Co, Sydney, p 52Google Scholar
  19. Freund HJ (2002) fMRI studies of the sensory and motor areas involved in movement. Adv Exp Med Biol 508:389–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Goodman-Delahunty J, Hewson L (2010) Enhancing fairness in DNA jury trials. Trends and issues in crime and criminal justice, vol 392. Australia Institute of Criminology, Canberra, pp 1–6Google Scholar
  21. Greely HT, Iles J (2007) Neuroscience-based lie detection: the urgent need for regulation. Am J Law Med 33:377Google Scholar
  22. Greene J, Cohen J (2004) For the law, neuroscience changes nothing and everything. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 359:1775–1778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hagan K (2009) DNA fiasco: rape conviction quashed. The Sydney Morning Herald. http://www.theage.com.au/national/dna-fiasco-rape-conviction-quashed-20091207-kfc3.html, October 2010. Accessed 8 December 2009
  24. Hocking BA, Manville LL (2001) What of the right to silence: still supporting the presumption of innocence, or a growing legal fiction? [2001] Mq LawJl 3; (2001) 1 Macquarie Law Journal 63Google Scholar
  25. Hodgson D (2000) Guilty mind or guilty brain? Criminal responsibility in the age of neuroscience. Aust Law J 74:661–680Google Scholar
  26. Kalver H, Zeisel H (1966) The American Jury. New Society, 25 August 1966, p 290. Accessed via: Law Reform Commission, The Jury’s Verdict, Discussion Paper 12 (1985) - Criminal procedure: the jury in a criminal trial. http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lrc.nsf/pages/DP12CHP9
  27. Kiehl K (2010) Can Neuroscience Identify Psychopaths? in A Judge’s Guide to Neuroscience: a Concise Introduction, 47 (sage center for the study of the mind, 2010)Google Scholar
  28. Leenaghan N, Guerrera O (2005) Call for brainfingerprinting. The Age (30 September 2005)Google Scholar
  29. Libet B (1999) Do we have free will? J Conscious Stud 6(8–9):47–57Google Scholar
  30. Maibom HL (2008) The mad, the bad, and the psychopath. Neuroethics 1:167–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Marchetti G (2005) Commentary on Benjamin Libet’s Mind Time. The temporal factor in consciousness. Accessed at: http://www.mind-consciousness-language.com/Commentary%20Libet%20Mind%20Time.pdf
  32. Mayberg H (2010) Does neuroscience give us new insights into criminal responsibility? A judge’s guide to neuroscience: a concise introduction. University of California, Berkeley, pp 37–51Google Scholar
  33. McKenna M 2009 Compatibilism. Stanford encyclopaedia of philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/. Accessed 5 October 2009
  34. Mertus J (1999) From leal transplants to transformative justice: human rights and the promise of transnational civil society. Accessed at: http://www.auilr.org/pdf/14/14-5-2.pdf
  35. Mobbs D, Lau HC, Jones OD, Frith CD (2007) Law, Responsibility, and the Brain. PLoS Biology 5(4):e103Google Scholar
  36. Moir A, Jessel D (1995) A mind to crime. Michael Joseph, LondonGoogle Scholar
  37. Moriarty JC (2008) Flickering admissibility: neuroimaging evidence in the U.S courts. Behav Sci Law 26:29–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Morse S (2008) Determinism and the death of folk psychology: two challenges to responsibility from neuroscience. Paper given at Deinard Memorial Lecture in Law and Medicine, pp 1–36Google Scholar
  39. Müller JL, Sommer M, Döhnel K, Weber T, Schmidt-Wilcke T, Hajak G (2008) Disturbed prefrontal and temporal brain function during emotion and cognition interaction in criminal psychopathy. Behav Sci Law 26:131–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nagel T (1974) What is it like to be a bat? The Philos Rev 83:435–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Norrie A (1991) Law, ideology and punishment. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 148–149Google Scholar
  42. Reimer M (2008) Psychopathy without (the language of) disorder. Neuroethics 1:185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rosen J (2007) Grey matters. The Sydney Morning Herald, April 6–8 2007, p 39Google Scholar
  44. Ruprecht CH (1997) Are verdicts, too, like sausages?: lifting the cloak of jury secrecy. University of Pennsylvania Law Rev 146:217Google Scholar
  45. Russell P (2007) Hume on free will. Stanford encyclopaedia of philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume-freewill/. Accessed 14 December 2007
  46. Sapolsky RM (2004) The frontal cortex and the criminal justice system. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 359(1451):1787–1796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schaechter JD, Moore CI, Connell BD, Rosen BR, Dijkhuizen RM (2006) Structural and functional plasticity in the somatosensory cortex of chronic stroke patients. Brain 129:2722–2733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Seaman J (2009) Black Boxes. Emory Law J 58:427–484. Accessed at: http://www.law.emory.edu/fileadmin/journals/elj/58/58.2/Seaman.pdf
  49. Shapiro BJ (1986) “To A Moral Certainty”: theories of knowledge and Anglo-American Juries 1600–1850. Hastings Law J 38:153Google Scholar
  50. Shen F, Jones O (2011) Brain scans as Evidence: Truths, Proofs, Lies and Lessons. (February 23, 2011) Mercer Law Rev, Vol 62, 2011Google Scholar
  51. Simpson J (2008) Functional MRI lie-detection: too good to be true? J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 36(4):491–498Google Scholar
  52. Vincent N (2010) Madness, badness and neuroimaging-based responsibility assessments. Law Neurosci Curr Legal Issues 13(1):15–17Google Scholar
  53. Wainer J (2010) Abortion case proves need for law change. Sydney Morning Herald. http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/abortion-case-proves-need-for-law-change-20101017-16p0u.html. Accessed 18 October 2010
  54. Wandell BA, Smirnakis SM (2009) Plasticity and stability of visual fieldmaps in adult primary visual cortex. Nat Rev Neurosci 10:873–884Google Scholar
  55. Wegner DM (2005) Who is the controller of controlled processes?. In: Hassin RR, Uleman JS, Bargh JA (eds) The new unconscious. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 19–20Google Scholar
  56. White AE (2010) The lie of fMRI: an examination of the ethics of a market in lie-detection using functional magnetic resonance imaging. HEC Forum 22(3):253–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Yang Y, Raine A (2009) Prefrontal structural and functional brain imaging findings in antisocial, violent, and psychopathic individuals: A meta-analysis. Psychiatry Res 174:81–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Technology SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations