Unit for Research in Legal Psychiatry and Psychology, Institute of Forensic Psychiatry, Department of Psychiatry, Lausanne University Hospital (CHUV), Site de Cery, Bat. Les Cèdres, 1008 Prilly, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Institute of Forensic Psychiatry, Department of Psychiatry, Lausanne University Hospital (CHUV), Lausanne, Switzerland.
Int J Law Psychiatry. 2019 Jul-Aug;65:101359. doi: 10.1016/j.ijlp.2018.05.007. Epub 2018 Jun 14.
Various neuroscientific techniques are increasingly being used in criminal courts causing a vivid debate on the way that this kind of techniques will and should be used as scientific evidence. The role of experts in this context is important, since it is them that analyse, present, interpret and communicate the results of these techniques to the judges and the jury. In an attempt to contribute to the discussion about the role of the experts in criminal cases where neuroimaging evidence was introduced, we examined twenty seven cases from the US and Europe. Focusing on the role of experts and their presentation of neuroscientific evidence, we aimed to examine the extent to which neuroimaging data can contribute to the construction of a solid and more objective, "scientifically - based" case. We found that neurobiological information introduced through experts' testimony is generally used in order to demonstrate some physical, organic base of a psychiatric condition, or/and in order to make visible some brain lesion, (structural or functional), susceptible to have affected the capacity to reason and to control one's impulses. While neuroimaging evidence is often presented by the defence as a scientific method able to offer a precise diagnosis of the pathology in question, our case analysis shows that the very same neurobiological evidence can be interpreted in different - sometimes diametrically opposed - ways by defence and State experts. Conflicting testimony about the same empirical evidence goes against the hypothesis of neuroscientific techniques constituting "objective and hard evidence", able to reach solid, scientific and objective conclusions. Frequent conflicts between neuroimaging experts require the courts to deal with the resulting uncertainty. As the law changes with technology, it is necessary for legal professionals to train and be prepared for the new issues they may encounter in light of new developments in neuroscience, so that they become more vigilant as to the interpretation of neuroscientific data.
各种神经科学技术正越来越多地被应用于刑事法庭，引发了一场关于此类技术将如何以及应如何作为科学证据使用的激烈辩论。在这种情况下，专家的角色很重要，因为正是他们分析、呈现、解释和向法官和陪审团传达这些技术的结果。为了探讨在引入神经影像学证据的刑事案件中专家的作用，我们研究了来自美国和欧洲的 27 个案例。我们专注于专家的角色及其呈现的神经科学证据，旨在考察神经影像学数据在多大程度上有助于构建一个坚实且更客观的、“基于科学”的案件。我们发现，通过专家证言引入的神经生物学信息通常用于证明某种精神状况的物理、有机基础，或者/并且用于使某些脑损伤（结构或功能）可见，这些损伤有可能影响推理和控制冲动的能力。虽然神经影像学证据通常被辩方作为一种能够对所涉病理进行精确诊断的科学方法提出，但我们的案例分析表明，辩方和州方专家可以以不同的方式——有时甚至截然相反的方式——解释相同的神经生物学证据。关于相同经验证据的相互矛盾的证言，违背了神经科学技术构成“客观和确凿证据”、能够得出确凿、科学和客观结论的假设。神经影像学专家之间经常发生冲突，这要求法院应对由此产生的不确定性。随着法律随着技术的发展而变化，法律专业人员有必要接受培训并为可能遇到的新问题做好准备，因为新技术的发展会给他们带来新的问题，这样他们才能更警惕地解释神经科学数据。
