It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
What if a jury could decide a man's guilt through mind reading? What if reading a defendant's memory could betray their guilt? And what constitutes 'intent' to commit murder?
Neurolaw, also known as legal neuroscience, builds upon the research of cognitive, psychological, and social neuroscience by considering the implications for these disciplines within a legal framework. Each of these disciplinary collaborations has been ground-breaking in increasing our knowledge of the way the human brain operates, and now neurolaw continues this trend.
One of the most controversial ways neuroscience is being used in the courtroom is through 'mind reading' and the detection of mental states. While only courts in New Mexico currently permit traditional lie detector, or polygraph, tests there are a number of companies claiming to have used neuroscience methods to detect lies.
"Some proponents of neurolaw think that neuroscience will soon be used widely throughout the legal system and that it is bound to produce profound changes in both substantive and procedural law," conclude the authors. "Other leaders in neurolaw employ a less sanguine tone, urging caution so as to prevent misuses and abuses of neuroscience within courts, legislatures, prisons, and other parts of the legal system.
In this clip, Nikolas Rose expresses doubts that the field of neuroethics will have any radical implications for jurisprudence, to which both Patricia Churchland and Francis Collins agree. Paul Nurse then brings up the problem of freewill, an issue which Daniel Dennett has written extensively on.
... the members of the MacArthur Law and Neuroscience Project (LANP) can share their ideas and interact with not only other researchers but also with the interested public more generally. One of the main goals of the blog is to provide people with a resource for finding out about cutting edge research at the cross-roads of neuroscience, law, and philosophy. Hopefully, readers will be as interested in the recent and future developments in the growing field of neurolaw as we are.
Michael S. Gazzaniga, Professor of Psychology, University of California at Santa Barbara & Director of the MacArthur Foundation's law & neuroscience Project.
Originally posted by optimus primal
isn't that unconstitutional? i would think it would fall under the right to not self incriminate.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.