Comments on: Neuroscience and Sentencing: Diminished culpability and capacity for change http://blogs.law.stanford.edu/lawandbiosciences/2009/12/14/neuroscience-and-sentencing-diminished-culpability-and-capacity-for-change/ Wed, 15 May 2013 21:56:51 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: R Jet Smith http://blogs.law.stanford.edu/lawandbiosciences/2009/12/14/neuroscience-and-sentencing-diminished-culpability-and-capacity-for-change/comment-page-1/#comment-17640 R Jet Smith Mon, 16 Jan 2012 19:22:47 +0000 http://blogs.law.stanford.edu/lawandbiosciences/?p=864#comment-17640 I read recently in the New Scientist that fMRI is making an appearance in UK courts. Various Councels have tried to use the tests, or make individuals take them, however the evidence has not been allowed to stand. As the comments above point out, this is for the best. After all, in the same article it was shown how fMRI can be fooled by practised subjects similarly to lie detectors. Let the science be solid before we use it to condemn anyone I say. I read recently in the New Scientist that fMRI is making an appearance in UK courts. Various Councels have tried to use the tests, or make individuals take them, however the evidence has not been allowed to stand. As the comments above point out, this is for the best. After all, in the same article it was shown how fMRI can be fooled by practised subjects similarly to lie detectors. Let the science be solid before we use it to condemn anyone I say.

]]> By: Jonathan Health http://blogs.law.stanford.edu/lawandbiosciences/2009/12/14/neuroscience-and-sentencing-diminished-culpability-and-capacity-for-change/comment-page-1/#comment-6266 Jonathan Health Fri, 15 Oct 2010 01:05:56 +0000 http://blogs.law.stanford.edu/lawandbiosciences/?p=864#comment-6266 It makes me uncomfortable to think that techniques such as fMRI are used in court, when tests have shown that different data can be retrieved from the same individual when monitored at different intervals... surely submitting this as evidence which could contribute to someone being given the death penalty is premature? It makes me uncomfortable to think that techniques such as fMRI are used in court, when tests have shown that different data can be retrieved from the same individual when monitored at different intervals… surely submitting this as evidence which could contribute to someone being given the death penalty is premature?

]]> By: John Buckley http://blogs.law.stanford.edu/lawandbiosciences/2009/12/14/neuroscience-and-sentencing-diminished-culpability-and-capacity-for-change/comment-page-1/#comment-6174 John Buckley Sun, 03 Oct 2010 20:28:45 +0000 http://blogs.law.stanford.edu/lawandbiosciences/?p=864#comment-6174 Whilst the specifics of the fMRI technology elude me, I would just like to chime in and say that for a jury to be out for 10 hours before sentencing someone to death, and for it to be regarded as a victory of any kind is shocking. Whilst I agree that some people's crimes are horrendous enough to warrant massive punishment, is killing them any better from a moral standpoint? And the waters only get murkier if they are mentally ill and incapable of rationalization etc... Whilst the specifics of the fMRI technology elude me, I would just like to chime in and say that for a jury to be out for 10 hours before sentencing someone to death, and for it to be regarded as a victory of any kind is shocking. Whilst I agree that some people’s crimes are horrendous enough to warrant massive punishment, is killing them any better from a moral standpoint? And the waters only get murkier if they are mentally ill and incapable of rationalization etc…

]]> By: hgreely http://blogs.law.stanford.edu/lawandbiosciences/2009/12/14/neuroscience-and-sentencing-diminished-culpability-and-capacity-for-change/comment-page-1/#comment-160 hgreely Sun, 03 Jan 2010 22:16:55 +0000 http://blogs.law.stanford.edu/lawandbiosciences/?p=864#comment-160 I guess I think it's useful to separate out two separate questions in the Dugan case: how useful is fMRI to a diagnosis of psychopathy and how relevant is a diagnosis of psychopathy of a decision about imposing the death penalty. I suppose, given the constitutionally-mandated breadth of possible mitigation evidence, the second question is one to be answered by any given capital sentencing jury - the defendant would have a right to put it before the jury. But what about the first one? Is fMRI better than, or even as good as, the Hare Psychopathy Check-List at diagnosing psychopathy? Do the two, used together, perform better than one alone? Or is the value of the fMRI to provide to jurors some physical connection for the condition that makes it seem more real than the sum of the answers to the 20 questions on the checklist? Of course, I think you allude in the post to the truly interesting question - when would fMRI evidence of "brain damaage" make a jury less likely to impose the death penalty and when would it make the jury more likely to impose it? I'll bet that's a tough call for defense counsel and one that will probably, at least for a while, limit this kind of evidence to cases where the outlook is very, very grim for the defendant. I have read that the 10 hours the jury was out in Dugan was viewed as something of a victory in a case where a death penalty was strongly expected. I guess I think it’s useful to separate out two separate questions in the Dugan case: how useful is fMRI to a diagnosis of psychopathy and how relevant is a diagnosis of psychopathy of a decision about imposing the death penalty. I suppose, given the constitutionally-mandated breadth of possible mitigation evidence, the second question is one to be answered by any given capital sentencing jury – the defendant would have a right to put it before the jury. But what about the first one? Is fMRI better than, or even as good as, the Hare Psychopathy Check-List at diagnosing psychopathy? Do the two, used together, perform better than one alone? Or is the value of the fMRI to provide to jurors some physical connection for the condition that makes it seem more real than the sum of the answers to the 20 questions on the checklist?

Of course, I think you allude in the post to the truly interesting question – when would fMRI evidence of “brain damaage” make a jury less likely to impose the death penalty and when would it make the jury more likely to impose it? I’ll bet that’s a tough call for defense counsel and one that will probably, at least for a while, limit this kind of evidence to cases where the outlook is very, very grim for the defendant. I have read that the 10 hours the jury was out in Dugan was viewed as something of a victory in a case where a death penalty was strongly expected.

]]>