1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Criminology
  4. Volume 2, 2019
  5. Article

Annual Review of Criminology

Volume 2, 2019

Neuroscience and the Criminal Justice System

Abstract

The criminal justice system acts directly on bodies, but fundamentally it cares about minds. As neuroscience progresses, it will increasingly be able to probe the objective, physical organ of the brain and reveal secrets from the subjective mind. This is already beginning to affect the criminal justice system, a trend that will only increase. This review article cannot begin even to sketch the full scope of the new field of law and neuroscience. The first workshop on the subject was held in 2003 (Garland 2004), but the field already has its own casebook (Jones et al. 2014) and the MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Law and Neuroscience (2018) shows more than 1,700 publications in the area between 1984 and 2017. Greely (2009) divided the implications of law into five different categories: prediction, mind-reading, responsibility, treatment, and enhancement. This article examines only three points: the current use of neuroscience to understand and explain criminal behavior, the possibilities of relevant neuroscience-based prediction, and plausible future applications of neuroscience to the treatment of criminals. But first, we discuss the human brain and how it works.

Keyword(s): evidence, neuroimaging, neuroscience, prediction, recidivism, treatment
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-criminol-011518-024433
2019-01-13
2024-04-16
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/criminol/2/1/annurev-criminol-011518-024433.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-criminol-011518-024433&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Aharoni E, Vincent GM, Harenski CL, Calhoun VD, Sinnott-Armstrong W et al. 2013. Neuroprediction of future rearrest. PNAS 110:6223–28
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Am. Law Inst. 1962.a Requirement of voluntary act; omission as basis of liability; possession as an act. Model Penal Code § 2.01 Philadelphia: ALI
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Am. Law Inst. 1962.b Requirement of voluntary act; omission as basis of liability; possession as an act. Model Penal Code § 2.01(2)(c) Philadelphia: ALI
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Am. Med. Assoc. 1998. Court-initiated medical treatments in criminal cases. AMA Code of Medical Ethics E-2.065 Chicago: AMA https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/court-initiated-medical-treatment-criminal-cases
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Am. Psychiatric Assoc. 2013. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Arlington VA: APA, 5th ed..
  6. Arseneau v. State 77 So.3d 1280 (Fla. 2012)
  7. Babiak P, Hare RD 2006. Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work New York: HarperBusiness
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Baskin-Sommers A, Stuppy-Sullivan AM, Buckholtz JW 2016. Psychopathic individuals exhibit but do not avoid regret during counterfactual decision making. PNAS 113:5014438–43
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Begley S 2018. Can zapping people's brains reduce violence? Controversial study sees potential. Stat July 2. https://www.statnews.com/2018/07/02/brain-electric-stimulation-violence/
  10. Berryessa CM, Chandler JA, Reiner P 2016. Public attitudes toward legally coerced biological treatments of criminals. J. Law Biosci. 3:3447–67
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Bester AE 1953. The Demolished Man Chicago: Shasta Publ.
  12. Bilenko N, Savage B 2016. Using image processing to improve reconstruction of movies from human brain activity. Vimeo https://vimeo.com/169779284
  13. BRAIN Initiat 2018. Advancing our Understanding of the Brain. BRAIN Initiative. http://www.braininitiative.org
  14. Brown T, Murphy E 2010. Through a scanner darkly: functional neuroimaging as evidence of a criminal defendant's past mental states. Stanf. Law Rev. 62:1119–208
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Brunner HG, Nelen M, Breakefield XO, Ropers HH, van Oost BA 1993.a Abnormal behavior associated with a point mutation in the structural gene for monoamine oxidase A. Science 2632:578–80
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Brunner HG, Nelen MR, van Zandvoort P, Abeling NG, van Gennip AH et al. 1993.b X-linked borderline mental retardation with prominent behavioral disturbance: phenotype, genetic localization, and evidence for disturbed Monoamine metabolism. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 52:61032–39
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Burgess A 1962. A Clockwork Orange London: Heinemann
  18. Caspi A, McClay J, Moffitt TE, Mill J, Martin J et al. 2002. Role of genotype in the cycle of violence in maltreated children. Science 297:851–54
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Chandler JA 2011. Autonomy and the unintended legal consequences of emerging neurotherapies. Neuroethics 6:2249–63
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Choy O, Raine A, Hamilton RH 2018. Stimulation of the prefrontal cortex reduces intentions to commit aggression: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, stratified, parallel-group trial. J. Neurosci. 38:296505–12
     [Google Scholar]
  21. CNN Spec. Rep. 1985. Electromagnetic frequency weapons. CNN Nov. 1. https://archive.org./details/CNNSpecialReport1985ElectromagneticFrequencyWeapons
  22. Cochrane J 2016. Indonesia approves castration for sex offenders who prey on children. New York Times May 25. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/world/asia/indonesia-chemical-castration.html
  23. Commonwealth v. Berry 2 N.E.3d 177 (Mass. 2014)
  24. Davidson v. State 453 S.W.3d 386 (Tenn. 2014)
  25. Douglas T 2014. Criminal rehabilitation through medical intervention: moral liability and the right to bodily integrity. Ethics 18:101–22
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Douglas T, Bonte P, Focquaert F, Devolder K, Sterckx S 2013. Coercion, incarceration, and chemical castration: an argument from autonomy. J. Bioeth. Inq. 10:398
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Dusky v. United States 362 U.S. 402 1960.
  28. Farahany NA 2012. Incriminating thoughts. Stanf. Law Rev. 64:351–408
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Farahany NA 2016. Neuroscience and behavioral genetics in US criminal law: an empirical analysis. J. Law Biosci. 2:3485–509
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Fergusson DM, Boden JM, Horwood LJ, Miller AL, Kennedy MA 2011. MAOA, abuse exposure and antisocial behaviour: 30 year longitudinal study. Br. J. Psychiatry 198:6457–63
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Forman M 1975. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest Los Angeles: Warner Brothers
  32. Fountas KN, Smith JR 2007. Historical evolution of stereotactic amygdalotomy for the management of severe aggression. J. Neurosurg. 106:710–13
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Frayling TM, Beaumont RN, Jones SE, Yaghootkar H, Tuke MA et al. 2018. A common allele in FGF21 associated with sugar intake is associated with body shape, lower total body-fat percentage, and higher blood pressure. Cell Rep 23:2327–36
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Gallant J 2011. Movie reconstruction through human brain activity. YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsjDnYxJ0bo
  35. Garland B 2004. Neuroscience and the Law: Brain, Mind, and the Scales of Justice New York: Dana Press
  36. Gaudet LM, Kerkmans J, Anderson N, Kiehl K 2016. Can neuroscience help predict future antisocial behavior?. Fordham Law Rev. 85:2503–31
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Golding SL, Roesch R 1988. Competency for adjudication: an international analysis. Law and Mental Health: International Perspectives DN Weisstub 73–109 New York: Pergamon
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Graham v. Florida 560 U.S. 48 2010.
  39. Greely HT 2008. Neuroscience and criminal justice: not responsibility but treatment. Univ. Kans. Law Rev. 56:1103–38
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Greely HT 2009. Law and the revolution in neuroscience: an early look at the field. Akron Law Rev 42:687–715
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Greely HT 2012. Direct brain interventions to “treat” disfavored human behaviors: ethical and social issues. Clin. Pharm. Ther. 91:21–3
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Greely HT, Wagner AD 2011. Reference guide on neuroscience. Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence Federal Judicial Center 747–812 Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press. , 3rd ed..
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Greene J, Cohen J 2004. For the law, neuroscience changes nothing and everything. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 359:14511775–85
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Hall W 2006. Stereotactic neurosurgical treatment of addiction: minimizing the chances of another “great and desperate cure.. ” Addiction 101:11–3
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Hare RD 2003. Manual for the Revised Psychopathy Checklist Toronto, ON: Multi-Health Syst. , 2nd ed..
  46. Hosking JG, Kastman EK, Dorfman HM, Samanez-Larkin GR, Baskin-Sommers A et al. 2017. Disrupted prefrontal regulation of striatal subjective value signals in psychopathy. Neuron 95:1221–31
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Huth AG, de Heer WA, Griffiths TL, Theunissen FE, Gallant J 2016. Natural speech reveals the semantic maps that tile human cerebral cortex. Nature 532:453–58
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Jones OW, Schall JD, Shen FX 2014. Law and Neuroscience New York: Aspen Publ.
  49. Kendler KS, Eaves LJ 2005. Psychiatric Genetics Washington, DC: Am. Psychiatric Publ.
  50. Kesey K 1962. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest New York: New Am. Libr.
  51. Kiehl KA, Anderson NE, Aharoni E, Maurer JM, Harenski K et al. 2018. Age of gray matters: neuroprediction of recidivism. Neuroimage Clin 19:813–23
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Kiehl KA, Hoffman MB 2011. The criminal psychopath: history, neuroscience, treatment, and economics. Jurimetrics 51:355–97
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Klag S, O'Callaghan F, Creed P 2005. The use of legal coercion in the treatment of substance abusers: an overview and critical analysis of thirty years of research. Subst. Use Misuse 40:1777–95
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Knecht v. Gillman 488 F.2d 1136 (8th Cir. 1973)
  55. Kubrick S 1972. A Clockwork Orange Los Angeles: Warner Bros.
  56. Lynch T 2003. The case against plea bargaining. Regulation 26:324–27
     [Google Scholar]
  57. MacArthur Found. Res. Netw. Law Neurosci. 2018. Cumulative total of law and neuroscience publications: 1984 through 2017 Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt Univ http://www.lawneuro.org/bibliography/bibliography2017.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Mackey v. Procunier 477 F.2d 877 (9th Cir. 1973)
  59. Mayer EE 1948. Prefrontal lobotomy and the courts. J. Crim. Law Criminol. 38:576–83
     [Google Scholar]
  60. McCabe DP, Castel AD 2008. Seeing is believing: the effect of brain images on judgements of scientific reasoning. Cognition 107:1343–52
     [Google Scholar]
  61. McPhate M 2016. United States of paranoia: they see gangs of stalkers. New York Times June 10. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/11/health/gang-stalking-targeted-individuals.html?_r=0
  62. Miller v. Alabama 567 U.S. 460 2012.
  63. Miller G 2008. Investigating the psychopathic mind. Science 321:1284–86
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Monahan J, Steadman HJ, Silver E, Appelbaum PS, Robbins PC et al. 2001. Rethinking Risk Assessment: The MacArthur Study of Mental Disorder and Violence New York: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Moore v. Wallace 2013 WL 1282320 (E.D. Missouri 2013)
  66. Morris A 2018. Stimulating the brain reduces intention to commit violence and sexual assault. Forbes July 2. https://www.forbes.com/sites/andreamorris/2018/07/02/stimulating-the-brain-reduces-intention-to-commit-violence-and-sexual-assault/#2edcab497138
  67. Murphy S 2018. Oklahoma considers chemical castration for sex offenders. Associated Press Febr. 3. https://www.apnews.com/2a46f5c4d08449ae8e19596f62a60d82
  68. Nutt AE 2018. Zapping the brain appears to decrease aggressive intentions, new study says. Washington Post. July 2. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2018/07/02/zapping-the-brain-appears-to-decrease-aggressive-intentions-new-study-says/?utm_term=.9caaa1e5f426
  69. Online Mendel. Inherit. Man. (OMIM). 2018. Brunner syndrome; BRNRS #300615. OMIM https://www.omim.org/entry/300615
  70. Palmer EE, Leffler M, Rogers C, Shaw M, Carroll R et al. 2016. New insights into Brunner syndrome and potential for targeted therapy. Clin. Genet. 89:1120–27
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Piton A, Poquet H, Redin C, Masurel A, Lauer J et al. 2014. 20 ans après: a second mutation in MAOA identified by targeted high-throughput sequencing in a family with altered behavior and cognition. Europ. J. Hum. Genet. 22:6776–83
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Poldrack RA, Monahan J, Imrey PB, Reyna V, Raichle ME et al. 2018. Predicting violent behavior; what can neuroscience add?. Trends Cog. Sci. 22:2111–23
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Raab S 2005. Vincent Gigante, mafia leader who feigned insanity, dies at 77. New York Times Dec. 19. https://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/19/obituaries/vincent-gigante-mafia-leader-who-feigned-insanity-dies-at-77.html
  74. Reardon S 2015. Neuroscience in court: the painful truth. Nature 518:474–76
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Rieger DA, Narrow WE, Kuhl EA, Kupfer DJ 2011. The Conceptual Evolution of DSM-5. Washington, DC: APA
  76. Roesch R, Ogloff JRO, Golding SL 1993. Competency to stand trial: legal and clinical issues. Appl. Prev. Psychol. 2:143–51
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Roper v. Simmons 543 U.S. 551 2005.
  78. Rosen J 2007. The brain on the stand. New York Times March 11. https://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/11/magazine/11Neurolaw.t.html
  79. Schweitzer NJ, Saks MJ, Murphy ER, Roskies AL, Sinnott-Armstrong W, Gaudet LM 2011. Neuroimages as evidence in a mens rea defense: no impact. Psychol. Public Policy Law 17:3357–93
     [Google Scholar]
  80. Shaw E 2012. Direct brain interventions and responsibility enhancement. Crim. Law Philos. 8:11–20
     [Google Scholar]
  81. Shniderman AB, Solberg LB 2015. Cosmetic psychopharmacology for prisoners: reducing crime and recidivism through cognitive intervention. Neuroethics 8:3315–26
     [Google Scholar]
  82. Smith AB, Berlin L 1978. Criminal law: a reappraisal of treating the criminal offender. Univ. Dayton Law Rev. 3:71
     [Google Scholar]
  83. Stinneford JF 2006. Incapacitation through maiming: chemical castration, the eighth amendment, and the denial of human dignity. Univ. St. Thomas Law J. 3:559–99
     [Google Scholar]
  84. Strickland v. Washington 366 U.S. 668 1984.
  85. Szasz T 1961. The Myth of Mental Illness: Foundations of a Theory of Personal Conduct New York: Hoeber-Harper
     [Google Scholar]
  86. Tan J 2018. Mind games: the tortured lives of “targeted individuals.”. Wired March 4. https://www.wired.com/story/mind-games-the-tortured-lives-of-targeted-individuals/
  87. U.S. v. Stanford 2011 WL 254515 (S.D. Tex. 2011)
  88. US Courts 2016. Just the Facts: U.S. Courts of Appeals Washington, DC: US Courts http://www.uscourts.gov/news/2016/12/20/just-facts-us-courts-appeals
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Valenstein ES 1973. Brain Control: A Critical Examination of Brain Stimulation and Psychosurgery New York: Wiley
  90. Valenstein ES 1986. Great and Desperate Cures: The Rise and Decline of Psychosurgery and Other Radical Treatments for Mental Illness New York: Basic Books
  91. Ward v. Barnes 2014 WL 1716065 (C.D. Cal. 2014)
  92. Weisberg DS, Keil FC, Goodstein J, Rawson E, Gray JR 2008. The seductive allure of neuroscience explanations. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 20:3470–77
     [Google Scholar]
  93. Whelan R, Garavan H 2014. When optimism hurts: inflated predictions in psychiatric neuroimaging. Bio. Psychiatry 75:9746–48
     [Google Scholar]
  94. Wittich CM, Burke CM, Lanier WL 2012. Ten common questions (and their answers), about off-label drug use. Mayo Clin. Proc. 87:10982–90
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-criminol-011518-024433
Loading
Neuroscience and the Criminal Justice System
Annual Review of Criminology 2, 451 (2019); https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-criminol-011518-024433
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-criminol-011518-024433
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-criminol-011518-024433
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error