Sample Solution

The issue with psychological based evidence is that very few neuroimaging-based tests are used in psychiatric diagnosis which lacks the sufficient sensitivity and specificity to be reliable enough for inclusion in diagnostic criteria” (Choi). When looking at the defendants self-reporting of their behavior, brain scans often reveal more than those reports suggest. “While most people’s self-reports are not very accurate, they do not realize their self-reports are wrong so often in predicting future behavior. The brain seems to reveal something important that we may not even realize” (University of California).

Jurors understanding of neuroscientific evidence is based upon whether they make a connection through the aforementioned evidence about the person’s criminal culpability (Kuersten). “Increasing the understanding of the pathology of the brain and the structural insights provided by technologies such as MRI have assisted both prosecution and defense in establishing degrees of harm cause” (Catley & Claydon). When presenting an individual’s criminal liability within the courts, the mental state and capacity of such individual’s brain should include neuroimaging and informative presentations to allow jurors to determine criminal responsibility (Kuersten).

Conclusion:

Based upon empirical evidence, brain scans should not be permitted in court. Neuroscience within courtrooms has been used for medical evidence or mitigating circumstances to prove that an abnormality had an effect on an individual’s behavior, however it has a lack of validated studies (Gaines).

Another issue that brain scans could produce in the courts is how the brain i