It's All in the Mind Y'know: Uses and Misuses of Neuroscience in Law

In 1991, using powerful magnets and "sewer pipe, wire, epoxy, and finger tapping,"* a few research groups converged on the idea of utilizing the magnetic resonance properties of gray matter to image the active, thinking human brain-what the world now knows as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Since then, cognitive neuroscience has developed apace, with an explosion of ingenious techniques and sophisticated tools. Each new advance is greeted with a chorus of scholarly and popular speculation on its potential application to other arenas of human endeavor.

Discussions about the 'promise of neuroscience' are often tinged with a mixture of hope and fear. Nowhere is this ambivalence more evident than in the courts, as conjecture runs rampant about the legal impact of this research, stoked by claims that neuroscience may soon detect liars, objectively determine criminal responsibility, quantify suffering, and predict violence. But is neuroscience ready for courtroom use? Does brain imaging permit us to measure a person's feelings, thoughts, and intentions? Can jurors understand and effectively weigh neuroscientific evidence?

Please join host David Faigman along with Dr. Kent Kiehl of the University of New Mexico and Professor Amanda Pustilnik of the University of Maryland and Harvard University to discuss the fascinating and wide-ranging challenges posed by the use of contemporary neuroscience in the courtroom.