뇌영상 증거의 과학적 증거로서의 기능과 한계
Brain Images as Legal Evidence in criminal procedure
0
조회
0
다운로드
14
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
A number of neurosience techniques have been developed, including electroencephalophy(EEG) and positron emission tomography(PET). In recent years development efforts over the past decade have increasingly focused on fMRI. Developments in neuroimaging has facilitated new research investigations into normal human brain functioning and have provided important new sights into the mechanisms of many neurological and psychiatric disorders. Brain images are becoming more common in courts in America. Some lawyers and neuroscientists are critical of introducing a brain images as legal evidence in criminal courts. Therefor, before admitting to introduce functional brain images in criminal trials, court must answer these central questions: How probative for criminal responsibility is the brain images? and whether the brain images confuse or mislead, how dangerous is the brain image? Does its danger substantially outweigh its probative value?We should focus on the extent to which brain images could be used to reduce responsibility, not to establish it. Brain images are sometimes offered to show that a particular defendant is abnormal in some way that is claimed to remove or reduce criminal responsibility. But even if in many cases the defendants has a functional abnormality that is correlated with violent crime, correlation does not prove causation. To be relevant to criminal responsibility, it is not enough for the brain image to disclose an abnormality that caused the criminal behavior. Any data regarding brain structure or function is unlikely sufficiently contemporaneous to the time of the crime to be meaningful. Because of this scientific uncertainties, the use of data from brain images in the courts has to be admittable in restrictive conditions. In recent brain scan might be admissible in some situations, such as capital sentencing. We carefully consider the question, whether brain images bring more harm than good to criminal trials. Some lawyers and neuroscientists answer that only time and carefully analysis will tell. We need to determine the error rates of various methods in neuroscience and to prepare the basic guidelines of using brain images as legal evidence and establish appropriate rules governing the burden of proof.
Abstract
A number of neurosience techniques have been developed, including electroencephalophy(EEG) and positron emission tomography(PET). In recent years development efforts over the past decade have increasingly focused on fMRI. Developments in neuroimaging has facilitated new research investigations into normal human brain functioning and have provided important new sights into the mechanisms of many neurological and psychiatric disorders. Brain images are becoming more common in courts in America. Some lawyers and neuroscientists are critical of introducing a brain images as legal evidence in criminal courts. Therefor, before admitting to introduce functional brain images in criminal trials, court must answer these central questions: How probative for criminal responsibility is the brain images? and whether the brain images confuse or mislead, how dangerous is the brain image? Does its danger substantially outweigh its probative value?We should focus on the extent to which brain images could be used to reduce responsibility, not to establish it. Brain images are sometimes offered to show that a particular defendant is abnormal in some way that is claimed to remove or reduce criminal responsibility. But even if in many cases the defendants has a functional abnormality that is correlated with violent crime, correlation does not prove causation. To be relevant to criminal responsibility, it is not enough for the brain image to disclose an abnormality that caused the criminal behavior. Any data regarding brain structure or function is unlikely sufficiently contemporaneous to the time of the crime to be meaningful. Because of this scientific uncertainties, the use of data from brain images in the courts has to be admittable in restrictive conditions. In recent brain scan might be admissible in some situations, such as capital sentencing. We carefully consider the question, whether brain images bring more harm than good to criminal trials. Some lawyers and neuroscientists answer that only time and carefully analysis will tell. We need to determine the error rates of various methods in neuroscience and to prepare the basic guidelines of using brain images as legal evidence and establish appropriate rules governing the burden of proof.
참고문헌 (33)
- Adina L. Roskie, "Neuroimaging and Inferential Distance", Neuroethics, 1, pp.19~30 (2008)
- Jonas Robitscher, "In Defence of the Insanity Defence", Emory Law Journal, 31, pp.9~ (1982)
- Anne-Marie R. Leistico, "A Large-Scale Meta-Analysis Relating the Hare Measures of Psychopathy to Antisocial conduct", Law & Hum. Behav., 32, pp.28~
- Arthur Best, "Evidence: Examples & Explanations" (2004), Aspen
- Bright, D. A., "Gruesome Evidence and Emotion: Anger, Blame, and Jury Decision-Making", Law and Human Behavior, 30 (2006)
- Caloun, V. D., "Aberrant localization of synchronous hemodynamic activity in auditory cortex reliably characterizes schizophrenia", Biological Psychiatry, 55
- "Daubert v. Merrel Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U. S. 579", ~ (1993)
- "Durham v. United States 214 F2d 862 (D. C. Cir.)", ~ (1954)
- Eyal Aharoni, "Can Neurological Evidence Help Courts Assess Criminal ResponsIdility? Lessons from Law and Neuroscience", Ann. N. Y. Acad Sci., 1124, pp.145~160 (2008)
- Feigenson, Neal, "Brain Imaging and Courtroom Evidence: On the AdmissIdility and Persuasiveness of fMRI", International Journal of Law in Context, 2
- "Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir.)", ~ (1923)
- Gurley, R., "The Effects of Neuroimaging and Brain Injury on insanity Defenses", Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 26 (2008)
- Hare, S. D., "Performance of criminal psychopaths on selected neurosychological tests", Journal of Abnormal psychology, 99 (1990)
- Henry F. Tradella, "From Insanity to Beyond Diminished Capacity: Mental Illness and Criminal Excuse in the Post-Clark Era", U. Fla. J. L. & Pub. Pol'y, 18, pp.7~
- "Hoskins v. State 735 So. 2d 1281(Fla.)", ~ (1999)
- Illes. Judy, "영상인가 상상인가 -유전학에 근거한 신경윤리학의 문제제기. in: 뇌속의 인간 인간속의 뇌" (2010), 바다출판사
- Kent Kiehl, "Can neuroscience identify psychopaths?, A Judge's Guide to Neuroscience", ~ (2008)
- Kiehl, K. A., "A cognitive neuroscience perspective on psychopathy: Evidence for paralimbric system dysfuntion", Pstchiatry Research, pp.142~ (2006)
- McCabe, D. P., "Seeing is Believing: The Effect of Brain Images on Judgement of Scientific Reasoning, Cognition 107", ~ (2008)
- "McNamara v. Borg 923 F.2d 862(9th Cir.)", ~ (1991)
- Michael L. Perlin, ""And I see Through Your Brain": Access to Experts, Competency to consent, and the Impact of Antipsychotic Medications in Neuroimaging Cases in the Criminal Trial Process", Stan. Tech. L. Rev., 4 (2009)
- Peggy Sasso, "Implementing the Death Penalty : the Moral Implications Recent Advances in Neuropsychology", Cardozo L. Rev., 29, pp.765~
- "People v. Ward, No. B193719, 2008 WL 3906423, at *3. (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 26, 2008)", ~ (2008)
- R. A. Duff, "Who is ResponsIdle, For What, To Whom", Ohio St. J. Crim. L., 2, pp.441~ (2005)
- Richard G. Singer, "Criminal Law", pp.432~ (2001), Aspen Law & Business
- Robert M. Wettstein, "A Psychiatric Perspective on Washington's Sexually Violent Predators Statute", U. Puger Sound L. Rev., 15, pp.597~
- "Roper v. Simmons, 543 US 551", ~ (2005)
- S. J. Morse, "Psychopathy and Criminal ResponsIdility", Neuroethics, 1, pp.205~212 (2008)
- Stepen J. Morse, "Psychopathy and Criminal ResponsIdility", Neuroethics, 1 (2008)
- Teneille Brown, "Through a Scanner Darkly: Function Neuroimaging as Evidence of a Criminal Defendant's Past States", Stan. L. Rev., 62, pp.1119~
- Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, "Brain Images as Legal Evidence", EPISTEME (2008)