e brain may be overactive during such time. When looking at an individual’s amygdala that is characterized as abnormal and overactive can be argued to the point of reverse-inference error due to trying to distinguish what is a normal or abnormal sign of the brain’s fear center (Choi).

Brain Scans Versus Self-Report:

Brain scans provide more complexity to detect brain impairments in individuals despite a clinical psychologist’s findings. A common problem within neurolaw is the group to individual inference problem. Psychologists often identify associations of brain defects with impairments by comparing a group of subjects with a localized defect to a group of subjects without the defect; this can result in overlapping due to the idea that impaired patients may have better control over a specific area in regard to the healthy controls and vice versa (Choi).

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 p