Document Type
Article
Publication Title
Nature Reviews Neuroscience
Publication Date
2014
ISSN
1471-003X
Page Number
730
Keywords
law and neuroscience; psychology; neurolaw; criminal responsibility; tort liability; evidence; brain; fMRi; expert witnesses; neuroethics; sentencing
Disciplines
Courts | Criminal Law | Evidence | Law | Neuroscience and Neurobiology
Abstract
Neuroscientific evidence is increasingly being offered in court cases. Consequently, the legal system needs neuroscientists to act as expert witnesses who can explain the limitations and interpretations of neuroscientific findings so that judges and jurors can make informed and appropriate inferences. The growing role of neuroscientists in court means that neuroscientists should be aware of important differences between the scientific and legal fields, and, especially, how scientific facts can be easily misunderstood by non-scientists,including judges and jurors.
This article describes similarities, as well as key differences, of legal and scientific cultures. And it explains six key principles about neuroscience that those in law need to know.
Recommended Citation
Owen D. Jones, Anthony D. Wagner, David L. Faigman, and Marcus E. Raichle,
Neuroscientists in Court, 14 Nature Reviews Neuroscience. 730
(2014)
Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/faculty-publications/1081
Included in
Courts Commons, Criminal Law Commons, Evidence Commons, Neuroscience and Neurobiology Commons