Citation

Martell DA. Behav. Sci. Law 2009; 27(2): 123-136.

Affiliation

Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, Semel Neuropsychiatric Institute, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, CA, USA. damartell@aol.com

Copyright

(Copyright © 2009, John Wiley and Sons)

DOI

10.1002/bsl.853

PMID

19267425

Abstract

Controversies surrounding the value of neuroscience as forensic evidence are explored from the perspective of the philosophy of mind, as well as from a practical analysis of the state of the scientific research literature. At a fundamental philosophical level there are profound differences in how law and neuroscience view the issue of criminal responsibility along the continuum from free will to determinism. At a more practical level, significant limitations in the current state of neuroimaging research constrain its ability to inform legal decision-making. Scientifically supported and unsupported forensic applications for brain imaging are discussed, and recommendations for forensic report writing are offered.

Language: en