her issue that brain scans could produce in the courts is how the brain is defined. If the brain is defined as a piece of evidence, the use of electroencephalography could be used to incriminate such individual. Furthermore, if the brain is viewed as a testimony, the defendant has protections against self-incrimination or testifying against themselves (Gaines).

Neuroimaging techniques produce pictures of a brain at the point they are being scanned. At a criminal trial, the mental faculties that the individual possessed is at the forefront of concern. Using brain scans inside of the courtroom to determine mental guilt for a crime post-hoc provides little value. Brain scans provide integral parts of understanding the brain and provide causal links between structural or functional abnormalities, but endangers individual liberties within the Criminal Justice System from freedom of thought, invasions of privacy, self-incrimination, and due process (Kraft & Giordano).

Based upon the findings and research done on brain scans and what information comes forth, brain scans need more evidentiary and legal practice to determine whether they can be successful in courts. Through this research, brain scans have provided a strong correlation between the Big Five personality traits as well as psychopathology and how the brain is structured. Due to the fact that people are not walking around with brain scan monitors strapped to their head, using brain scans to define a guilty verdict within criminal court is going to provide little to no success in a defense all while trying to stay in the means of individual liberties.