The Use of Neuroscientific Discoveries in Criminal and Civil Evidence Law
Abstract
The problem of objectification in criminal and civil evidence law is the basis of present work. Neuroscientific discoveries should be taken into account in evidentiary procedures when objectifying subjective facts. The first neuroscientific steps in objectifying pain and other subjective facts have already been made. The author outpoints certain limitations in the field of incorporation of neuroscientific discoveries into judicial procedures. He argues that some neuroscientific discoveries are already suitable for evidentiary purposes and their number will gradually increase. Neuroscience is looking forward to a gradual improvement of neuroimaging technologies that will increase the number of (reliable) discoveries applicable in evidence law. Neuroscientific discoveries are going to become an important part in objectification of subjective facts in criminal and civil procedures.
Problem objektivizacije v kazenskem in civilnem dokaznem pravu predstavlja izhodišče predmetnega dela. Avtor zastopa stališče, da bi bilo koristno pri objektivizaciji subjektivnih dejstev uporabiti odkritja nevroznanosti. Ta je namreč že naredila prve korake na področju objektivizacije bolečine in drugih subjektivnih dejstev. Avtor opozarja tudi na omejitve, ki se lahko pojavijo pri uporabi nevroznanstvenih odkritij v sodnih postopkih. Zaključuje, da se lahko posamezna odkritja že uporabijo v dokazne namene in da se bo njihovo število še povečevalo. Nadaljnji razvoj bo namreč izboljšal nevroznanstvene metode, kar bo povečalo število (zanesljivih) odkritij v dokaznem pravu. S tem bodo nevroznanstvena odkritja postala pomemben del objektivizacije subjektivnih dejstev v kazenskih in civilnih postopkih.
Downloads
References
Adelman, G. E. (1987) Encyclopedia of Neuroscience (Basel: Birkhauser Verlag).
Baliki, M., Geha, P. Y., Fields, H. L. & Apkarian, A. V. (2010) Predicting value of pain and analgesia: nucleus accumbens response to noxious stimuli changes in the presence of chronic pain, Neuron, 66(1), pp. 149-160, doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2010.03.002.
Bavcon, L., et al. (2009) Kazensko pravo – splošni del (Ljubljana: GV Založba).
Bear, F. M., Connors, B. W. & Paradiso, M. A. (2016) Neuroscience, Exploring the Brain (Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer).
Bles, M. & Haynes, J. D. (2008) Detecting concealed information using brain-imaging technology, Neurocase, 14(1), pp. 82-92, doi: 10.1080/13554790801992784.
Brown, J., Chatterjee, N., Younger, J. & Mackey, S. (2011) Towards a Physiology-Based Measure of Pain: Patterns of Human Brain Activity Distinguish Painful from Non-Painful Thermal Stimulation, PLOS ONE, available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0024124 (June 6, 2018).
Cowan, W. M., Harter, D. H. & Kandel, E. R. (2000) The Emergence of Modern Neuroscience: Some Implications for Neurology and Psychiatry, Annual Review of Neuroscience, 23, pp. 343-391.
De Kogel, C. H., Schrama, W. M. & Smit, M. (2013) Civil Law and Neuroscience, Psychiatry, Psychology and Law 21(2), pp. 272-285, doi: 10.1080/13218719.2013.808978.
Dežman, Z., et al. (2003) Kazensko procesno pravo Republike Slovenije (Ljubljana: GV Založba).
Eggen, J. M. & Laury, E. J. (2012) Toward a Neuroscience Model of Tort Law: How Functional Neuroimaging Will Transform Tort Doctrine, The Columbia Science & Technology Law Review, 13, pp. 235-306.
Faulkes, Z. (2011) Can Brain Imaging Replace Interrogation and Torture?, Global Virtue Ethics Review, 6(2), pp. 55-78.
Gazzaniga, M., et al. (2010) A judge’s guide to neuroscience: A concise introduction (Santa Barbara: University of California).
Goodenough, O. R. (2001) Mapping Cortical Areas Associated with Legal Reasoning and Moral Intuition, Jurimetrics, 41(4), pp. 429-442.
Goodenough, O. R. & Tucker, M. (2010) Law and Cognitive Neuroscience, Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 6, pp. 61-92, doi: 10.1146/annurev.lawsocsci.093008.131523.
Greene, J. & Cohen, J. (2004) For the Law, Neuroscience Changes Nothing and Everything, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Biological Sciences, 359(1451), pp. 1775-1785, doi: 10.1098/rstb.2004.1546.
Harris, J., et al. (2011) Brain Waves Module 4: Neuroscience and the Law (London: The Royal Society).
Kolber, A. J. (2007) Pain Detection and the Privacy of Subjective Experience, American Journal of Law and Medicine, 33(2-3), pp. 433-456.
Kolber, A. J. (2014) Will There Be a Neurolaw Revolution?, Indiana Law Journal, 89(807), pp. 808-845.
Marcus, G., Freeman, J., Moser, M.-B. & Moser, E. I. (eds.) (2015) The future of the brain, Essays by the world’s leading neuroscientists (Princeton: Princeton University Press).
Mellyn, E. W. (2014) Mad Tuscans and Their Families – A History of Mental Disorder in Early Modern Italy (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press).
Merskey, H., et al. (1994) Classification of chronic pain: descriptions of chronic pain syndromes and definitions of pain terms (Seattle: IASP Press).
Mohorko, N., et al. (2014) Prvi koraki v nevroznanost, znanost o možganih (Ljubljana: SiNAPSA, Slovensko društvo za nevroznanost).
Morse, S. J. (1982) Failed Explanations and Criminal Responsibility: Experts and the Unconscious, Virginia Law Review, 68(971), pp. 971-1084.
Nadelhoffer, T. & Nahmias, E. (2011) Neuroscience, Free Will, Folk Intuitions and the Criminal Law, Marshall Law Review, 36(157), pp. 157-176.
Pavčnik, M. (2007) Teorija prava (Ljubljana: GV Založba).
Plesničar, B. K. (2016) Relationship between a Doctor and a Patient with Mental Disorder, Medicine, Law & Society, 9(1), pp. 11-19, doi 10.18690/24637955.9.1.11-19(2016).
Pustilnik, C. A. (2009) Violence on the Brain: A Critique of Neuroscience in Criminal Law, Wake Forest Law Review, 44(183), pp. 183-238.
Rechberger, W. H. & Simotta, D.-A. (2003) Grundriss des österreichischen Zivilprozessrechts – Erkenntnisverfahren (Vienna: Manzsche Verlags- und Universitätsbuchhandlung).
Salecl, R., et al. (2015) Možgani na zatožni klopi (Ljubljana: GV Založba).
Shen, X. F. (2016) The Overlooked History of Neurolaw, Fordham Law Review, 84(667), pp. 667-695.
Shen, X. F. (2017) Law and Neuroscience 2.0, Arizona State Law Journal, 48(1043), pp. 1043-1086.
Smith, S. (1954) The Development of Forensic Medicine and Law-Science Relations, Journal of Public Law, 3(304), pp. 304-318.
Spence, S. & Kaylor-Hughes, C. J. (2008) Looking for truth and finding lies: The prospects for a nascent neuroimaging of deception, Neurocase 14(1), pp. 68-81, doi: 10.1080/13554790801992776.
Tighe, J. A. (1986) The New York Medico-Legal Society: Legitimating the Union of Law and Psychiatry (1867–1918), International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 9(2), pp. 231-243, doi: 10.1016/0160-2527(86)90048-8.
Wecht, C. H. (2005) The History of Legal Medicine, The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 33(2), pp. 245-251.
Wickens, A. P. (2015) A History of the Brain (London & New York: Psychology Press).
Copyright (c) 2018 University of Maribor, University Press
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.