Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2017 Nov 8;11:621.
doi: 10.3389/fnins.2017.00621. eCollection 2017.

Integrating Brain Science and Law: Neuroscientific Evidence and Legal Perspectives on Protecting Individual Liberties

Affiliations
Free PMC article
Review

Integrating Brain Science and Law: Neuroscientific Evidence and Legal Perspectives on Protecting Individual Liberties

Calvin J Kraft et al. Front Neurosci. .
Free PMC article

Abstract

Advances in neuroscientific techniques have found increasingly broader applications, including in legal neuroscience (or "neurolaw"), where experts in the brain sciences are called to testify in the courtroom. But does the incursion of neuroscience into the legal sphere constitute a threat to individual liberties? And what legal protections are there against such threats? In this paper, we outline individual rights as they interact with neuroscientific methods. We then proceed to examine the current uses of neuroscientific evidence, and ultimately determine whether the rights of the individual are endangered by such approaches. Based on our analysis, we conclude that while federal evidence rules constitute a substantial hurdle for the use of neuroscientific evidence, more ethical safeguards are needed to protect against future violations of fundamental rights. Finally, we assert that it will be increasingly imperative for the legal and neuroscientific communities to work together to better define the limits, capabilities, and intended direction of neuroscientific methods applicable for use in law.

Keywords: cognitive liberty; freedom of thought; legal neuroscience; neuroevidence; neuroimaging; neurolaw; privacy.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by 1 article

References

    1. Alexander A. (2007). Functional magnetic resonance imaging lie detection: is a brainstorm headed for the gatekeeper? Houst. J. Health L. Policy 7, 1–56.
    1. Bernstein D., Jackson J. (2004). The Daubert trilogy in the states. Jurimetrics 44, 351–366.
    1. Bles M., Haynes J. (2008). Detecting concealed information using brain-imaging technology. Neurocase 14, 82–92. 10.1080/13554790801992784 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Boire R. (2001). On cognitive liberty. J. Cogn. Liberties 2, 7–22.
    1. Boire R. (2005). Searching the brain: the Fourth Amendment implications of brain-based deception detection devices. Am. J. Bioeth. 5, 62–63. 10.1080/15265160590960933 - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources

Feedback