Aono Darby, Yaffe Gideon, Kober Hedy
Yale College, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA.
Yale Law School, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA.
Cogn Res Princ Implic. 2019 Oct 22;4(1):40. doi: 10.1186/s41235-019-0179-y.
The use of neuroscience in the courtroom can be traced back to the early twentieth century. However, the use of neuroscientific evidence in criminal proceedings has increased significantly over the last two decades. This rapid increase has raised questions, among the media as well as the legal and scientific communities, regarding the effects that such evidence could have on legal decision makers. In this article, we first outline the history of neuroscientific evidence in courtrooms and then we provide a review of recent research investigating the effects of neuroscientific evidence on decision-making broadly, and on legal decisions specifically. In the latter case, we review studies that measure the effect of neuroscientific evidence (both imaging and nonimaging) on verdicts, sentencing recommendations, and beliefs of mock jurors and judges presented with a criminal case. Overall, the reviewed studies suggest mitigating effects of neuroscientific evidence on some legal decisions (e.g., the death penalty). Furthermore, factors such as mental disorder diagnoses and perceived dangerousness might moderate the mitigating effect of such evidence. Importantly, neuroscientific evidence that includes images of the brain does not appear to have an especially persuasive effect (compared with other neuroscientific evidence that does not include an image). Future directions for research are discussed, with a specific call for studies that vary defendant characteristics, the nature of the crime, and a juror's perception of the defendant, in order to better understand the roles of moderating factors and cognitive mediators of persuasion.
神经科学在法庭上的应用可以追溯到20世纪初。然而，在过去二十年中，神经科学证据在刑事诉讼中的使用显著增加。这种快速增长引发了媒体以及法律和科学界对这类证据可能对法律决策者产生的影响的质疑。在本文中，我们首先概述神经科学证据在法庭上的历史，然后回顾最近的研究，这些研究广泛调查了神经科学证据对决策的影响，特别是对法律决策的影响。在后一种情况下，我们回顾了一些研究，这些研究测量了神经科学证据（包括成像和非成像证据）对模拟陪审员和法官在面对刑事案件时的裁决、量刑建议和信念的影响。总体而言，所审查的研究表明神经科学证据对某些法律决策（如死刑）有减轻影响。此外，精神障碍诊断和感知危险性等因素可能会调节此类证据的减轻效果。重要的是，包含大脑图像的神经科学证据似乎并没有特别有说服力的效果（与其他不包含图像的神经科学证据相比）。本文还讨论了未来的研究方向，特别呼吁开展各种研究，改变被告特征、犯罪性质和陪审员对被告的看法，以便更好地理解调节因素和说服认知中介的作用。
