법정 증거로서 뇌영상증거의 한계: 역추론(reverse inference)의 문제
The Limitation of Brain Image Evidence as Legal Evidence: The Problem of Reverse Inference
0
조회
0
다운로드
6
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
본 연구는 법정 증거로서 뇌영상증거의 허용가능성 문제를 다룬다. 뇌영상 자료의 법정 사용을 옹호하는 연구자들은 기술적인 문제에만 집중한다. 그러나 뇌영상증거는 다른 차원의 문제를 지니고 있다. 이를 보이기 위해 본 연구는 먼저 뇌영상증거가 기반하는 논리를 분석하였다. 이 분석을 통해 드러나는 바는 뇌영상증거의 문제가 뇌신경과학에서 ‘역추론의 문제’라고 불리는 문제와 연결되어 있다는 것이다. 따라서 뇌영상증거가 허용가능하기 위해서는 역추론 문제가 해결가능해야 한다. 그러나 뇌신경과학자들이 제안한 이 문제의 해결책은 근본적인 난점을 지니고 있을 뿐만 아니라 법적인 문제에서 중요한 부분인 도덕적 기능의 영역에서도 유효한 해결책이 아니다. 그럼에도 불구하고 과학자들은 역추론에 대해 우호적인 입장을 취한다. 이 고찰의 결과는 과학과 법학의 근본적인 시각 차이가 존재하며, 따라서 뇌영상증거의 가치가 과학에서와 법정에서 서로 다르게 평가될 수밖에 없다는 것을 보여준다. 결론적으로 본 연구는 법정에서 뇌영상증거에 대해 엄격한 태도를 취하는 것이 옳다고 평가한다.
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to examine the permissibility of brain images as legal evidence. Researchers who advocate the use of brain images as legal evidence concentrate only on technical issues. However, brain image evidence has a problem of different dimensions. Thus, this study analyzes the logic on which brain image evidence is based. Through this analysis, it is found that the problem of brain image evidence is associated with a problem called ‘Reverse Problem’ in neuroscience. Thus, a reverse inference problem must be solved in order to permit brain images as legal evidence. Even though neuroscientists who advocate reverse inference have suggested solutions to this problem, however, that solutions do not only have fundamental difficulties but are also ineffective in the area of the ethical function which is critical in legal issues. Nevertheless, the scientists take a favorable position on the reverse inference. The results of this study show that there is a fundamental difference in views between science and law and the value of brain image evidence is differently assessed in the courts and science. The conclusion of this study is that a strict attitude about the permissibility of brain image evidence shall be taken in the courts.
참고문헌 (31)
- 이인영, "뇌영상 증거의 과학적 증거로서의 기능과 한계", 형사법연구, 22(4), pp.255~278 (2010), 한국형사법학회
- Fodor, Jerry A, "The Modularity of Mind: An Essay on Faculty Psychology" (1983), MIT press
- Uttal, William R., "The New Phrenology: The limits of Localizing Cognitive Processes in the Brain" (2001), The MIT press
- Adolphs, Ralph, "Cognitive Neuroscience of Human Social Behaviour", Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 4, pp.165~178 (2003)
- Aguirre, Geoffrey Karl, "Behavioral Neurology and Cognitive Neuropsychology", pp.35~46 (2003), McGraw-Hill
- Aharoni, E., "Can Neurological Evidence Help Courts Assess Criminal Responsibility? Lessons from Law and Neuroscience", Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1124, pp.145~160 (2008)
- Aizawa, Ken, "Neuroscience and Multiple Realization: a Reply to Bechtel and Mundale", Synthese, 167, pp.493~510 (2009)
- Anderson, Michael L., "Neural Reuse: A Fundamental Organizational Principle of the Brain", Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, pp.245~266 (2010)
- Buckholtz, Joshua W., "Promises, Promises for Neuroscience and Law", Current Biology, 24, pp.861~867 (2014)
- Dawid, A. Philip, "Fitting Science into Legal Contexts Assessing Effects of Causes or Causes of Effects?", Sociological Methods & Research (2013)
- Denno, Deborah W., "A Mind to Blame: New Views on Involuntary Acts", Behavioral Sciences &the Law, 21, pp.601~618 (2003)
- Edelman, Gerald M., "Gally, Degeneracy and Complexity in Biological systems", Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 98, pp.13763~13768 (2001)
- Figdor, Carrie, "Neuroscience and the Multiple Realization of Cognitive Functions", Philosophy of Science, 77, pp.419~456 (2010)
- Friston, Karl J., "Price, Modules and Brain Mapping", Cognitive neuropsychology, 28, pp.241~250 (2011)
- Gilbert, Frederic, "Controlling Brain Cells with Light:Ethical Considerations for Optogenetic Clinical Trials", AJOB Neuroscience, 5, pp.3~11 (2014)
- Henson, Richard, "What Can Functional Neuroimaging Tell the Experimental Psychologist?", The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 58, pp.193~233 (2005)
- Henson, Richard, "Forward Inference Using Functional Neuroimaging: Dissociations Versus Associations", Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, pp.64~69 (2006)
- Henson, Richard, "How to Discover Modules in Mind and Brain: The Curse of Nonlinearity, and Blessing of Neuroimaging. A Comment on Sternberg (2011)", Cognitive Neuropsychology, 28, pp.209~223 (2011)
- Huettel, S. A., "Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging", pp.490~ (2009), Sinauer Associates
- Logothetis, Nikos K., "What We Can Do and What We Cannot Do with fMRI", Nature, 453, pp.869~878 (2008)
- Machery, Edouard, "In Defense of Reverse Inference", The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science (2013)
- Noppeney, Uta, "Degenerate Neuronal Systems Sustaining Cognitive Functions", Journal of Anatomy, 205, pp.433~442 (2004)
- Parkinson, C., "Is Morality Unified? Evidence that Distinct Neural Systems Underlie Moral Judgments of Harm, Dishonesty, and Disgust", Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23, pp.3162~3180 (2011)
- Poldrack, Russell A., "Can Cognitive Processes be Inferred from Neuroimaging Data?", Trends in cognitive sciences, 10, pp.59~63 (2006)
- Roskies, Adina L., "Neuroimaging and Inferential Distance", Neuroethics, 1, pp.19~30 (2008)
- Samuels, Richard, "Contemporary Debates in Cognitive Science", pp.37~56 (2006), Blackwell
- Sapolsky, Robert M., "The Frontal Cortex and the Criminal Justice System", Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci, 359, pp.1787~1796 (2004)
- uer, Frederick, "Can Bad Science be Good Evidence-Neuroscience, Lie Detection, and Beyond", Cornell L. Rev, 95 (2009)
- Sternberg, Saul, "Separate Modifiability, Mental Modules, and the Use of Pure and Composite Measures to Reveal Them", Acta psychologica, 106, pp.147~246 (2001)
- Van Orden, Guy C., "Functional Neuroimages Fail to Discover Pieces of Mind in the Parts of the Brain", Philosophy of Science, pp.85~94 (1997)
- Yang, Yaling, "Brain Abnormalities in Antisocial Individuals:Implications for the Law", Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 26, pp.65~83 (2008)