Sample Solution

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 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 f