The Influence Of Neurotechnology On The Insanity Defense

Technology is a resource that has developed and evolved over the years and has led to numerous discoveries, like being used in solving crimes or discoveries in hospital settings. Therefore, establishing a connection between the two fields, and can be used to intertwine Psychology and Law as well. Mental illness is an area where psychology and law interact, however, how is mental illness represented in legal terms, and what happens when an individual with a mental illness commits a crime? With the assistance of neuroscience and neurotechnologies, these deficits can be seen, essentially helping an individual confirm mental illness in the event of legal troubles.

Insanity is a legal term, and the insanity defense is used to aid insane individuals who commit a crime but are not in the right mind frame when doing so. There are certain criteria needed before an individual can use the Insanity Defense. The Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984 solidified the definition and use of Insanity in courts (English, 1988). Before this act, however, there were multiple tests used to demonstrate insanity that ultimately led to the Reform Act. These tests included the M’Naghten test, the Irresistible Impulse Rule, and the Model Penal Code. The M’Naghten test, established in the latter half of the 19th century that states that at the time of the crime, the individual did not know what was right from wrong at that moment (English, 1988). The M’Naghten rule, used in two-thirds of the United States, was used only for individuals that showed cognitive deficits. Cognitive deficits were defined as a disorder that undermines a person’s ability to perceive reality accurately (English, 1988). The Irresistible Impulse Rule was used in one-third of the United States and excuses individuals that have deficits in control. At the time of the crime, these individuals understood the difference between right and wrong but due to their deficits lacked self-control (English 1988). Lastly, the Model Penal Code, used in the 1970s, was a combination of the tests prior to its time. It stated that an individual was not guilty by reason of insanity if they have a mental disorder and at the time of the crime they could not know right from wrong and could not control their actions (English, 1988). Today, due to the Insanity Defense Reform Act, in order to use the Insanity Defense, there has to be clear evidence of Insanity provided by the defense, and the scope of expert testimony was limited.

It would seem as though the Insanity Defense is used in an abundance. Exactly how prevalent are Insanity pleas in the United States? The Insanity Defense is rarely used because of the difficulty proving insanity at the time of the crime. In fact, it is only used in 1% of cases, and when used, has a 26% success rate (Callahan,1991). In a case study of 8 states, with regards to the Insanity Defense, there was acquittal 26% of the time, with Washington having the highest percentage of acquittal rates (Callahan, 1991). It is imperative to understand what the insanity defense is and how hard it is to provide evidence of insanity.

One such way to demonstrate insanity is through the use of neuroscience. This is a field in science that signifies a connection between the brain and cognition. A subarea of neuroscience is neurotechnology. Neurotechnology is using methods and instruments to establish a direct connection between the nervous system and technical components like electrodes and computers (Muller & Rotter, 2017). When presented in court, these can be seen in forms of photos, graphs, or as an expert’s testimony.

In 2011, Neuroscience was used to establish defects that aided in a court case. On a sample of 1,170 mock jurors in an Insanity Defense, these jurors were to give their verdict for a man with a mental disorder that assaulted his neighbor. These participants were divided into four conditions. The first condition was participants exposed to neuroimaging that showed the damage to the frontal lobe, the second condition, a neurologist that did not use visuals and just explained the damages, third a neurologist that used a graph, and finally, expertise from a clinical psychologist (Schweitzer & Saks, 2011). Results indicated that participants that saw the neuroimage were slightly more likely to deliver a Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity (NGRI) verdict than those who were in the clinical psychologist condition Thus attesting that neuroscience can be used in assisting as evidence to show insanity.

When it comes to an insanity case, jurors have the responsibility of deciding whether defendants are legally responsible for their crimes. This can be more challenging when presented with multiple pieces of evidence. In a study with 396 participants, they determined the fate of an individual who murdered a postal officer in a restaurant (Gurley & Marcus, 2008). The participants were randomly placed in eight conditions with three variables of mental disorder (schizophrenia or description, neuroimaging evidence (absent or present), and the onset of the disorder (brain injury or no brain injury). The results indicated that one-third of the participants’ verdict was NGRI. When neuroimaging and traumatic brain injury was combined the verdict was NGRI 47% of the time (Gurley & Marcus, 2008). Ultimately showing that brain imaging influences jurors’ verdict but there was still difficulty determining a verdict.

Neuroscience is most useful in insanity cases when it can demonstrate an individual’s lack of capacity to know. Aharoni and colleagues (2008) used neuroscience to establish a link between intention and insanity. This was then supported by assessing which areas of the brain were important for moral judgment and what happened when that area was damaged. This was illustrated by presenting moral dilemmas to individuals with damage to the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (VMPFC) and individuals without damage and comparing the results. These dilemmas involved personal involvement like harming a few individuals and the total outcome of people saved. Results show that individuals with damage to the VMPFC show a more willingness to indulge in personal acts of causing harm (Aharoni et al., 2008). Thus showing that there is a difference in decision making and moral judgment for individuals with brain damage in comparison to individuals without damage. This study helped to provide information about the advances in neurotechnology and laid the foundation for other research on neuroimaging that is used today.

Although neuroscience is extremely useful in court cases by illustrating neural images that could make people responsible for their behavior, there are limitations to it. Maoz and Yaffe (2016) mention the intention and perception of the risk of individuals and how neuroscience is effective in determining these things. They study the brain images of individuals with diminished capacity and these images are examined to see how the damaged areas influence their decision making. These images and studies are then compared to individuals that do not have damage and the differences are recorded. Results indicate that damage does influence intent, however correlation is not causation (Maoz & Yaffe, 2016). Though neuroscience is great it can not specifically link abnormalities to criminal behavior.

It is the civic duty of citizens of the United States of America to serve on a jury. In doing so it is important to be knowledgeable on the proceedings that are going to occur and what is expected to allow yourself to make a more informed decision.

Neuroscience is a growing field that can help multiple fields. We see how it can be used in courts to help defendants demonstrate abnormalities. It is also used in psychology to help establish deficits. With the use of neuroscience, it can help to assist individuals to establish damages, however, there are limitations to it. Neuroscience is a growing field and if it keeps making the advances, in the future it can become the top evidence needed to establish the link between criminal behavior and brain abnormalities. It is important to discuss neuroscience because the evidence of the impact of neuroscience in law is seen through multiple cases.

Immersive technology is an area in neurotechnology as is digital immersive virtual environment technology (IVET). These technologies are the key to understanding free will and assessing cognition. I think the results thus far show how important neuroscience is and we can see just how useful neuroscience can be in law. As this is a relatively recent area of study I think slightly more research has to be done as there are some challenges before being fully admitted into court as evidence.

References

1. Aharoni, E., Funk, C., Sinnott‐Armstrong, W., & Gazzaniga, M. (2008). Can neurological evidence help courts assess criminal responsibility? Lessons from law and neuroscience. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1124(1), 145-160.
2. Callahan, L. A., Steadman, H. J., McGreevy, M. A., & Robbins, P. C. (1991). The volume and characteristics of insanity defense pleas: An eight-state study. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online, 19(4), 331-338.
3. English, J. (1988). The light between twilight and dusk: federal criminal law and the volitional insanity defense. Hastings Law Journal, 40(1), 1-52.
4. Gurley, J. R., & Marcus, D. K. (2008). The effects of neuroimaging and brain injury on insanity defenses. Behavioral sciences & the law, 26(1), 85-97.
5. Maoz, U., & Yaffe, G. (2016). What does recent neuroscience tell us about criminal responsibility?. Journal of Law and the Biosciences, 3(1), 120-139.
6. Müller, O., & Rotter, S. (2017). Neurotechnology: Current Developments and Ethical Issues. Frontiers in systems neuroscience, 11, 93. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnsys.2017.00093
7. Schweitzer, N. J., & Saks, M. J. (2011). Neuroimage evidence and the insanity defense. Behavioral sciences & the law, 29(4), 592-607.