Scarpazza Cristina, Miolla Alessio, Zampieri Ilaria, Melis Giulia, Sartori Giuseppe, Ferracuti Stefano, Pietrini Pietro
Department of General Psychology, University of Padova, Padova, Italy.
Department of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Front Psychiatry. 2021 Feb 5;12:597918. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2021.597918. eCollection 2021.
A prominent body of literature indicates that insanity evaluations, which are intended to provide influential expert reports for judges to reach a decision "," suffer from a low inter-rater reliability. This paper reviews the limitations of the classical approach to insanity evaluation and the criticisms to the introduction of neuro-scientific approach in court. Here, we explain why in our opinion these criticisms, that seriously hamper the translational implementation of neuroscience into the forensic setting, do not survive scientific scrutiny. Moreover, we discuss how the neuro-scientific multimodal approach may improve the inter-rater reliability in insanity evaluation. Critically, neuroscience does not aim to introduce a brain-based concept of insanity. Indeed, criteria for responsibility and insanity are and should remain clinical. Rather, following the falsificationist approach and the convergence of evidence principle, the neuro-scientific multimodal approach is being proposed as a way to improve reliability of insanity evaluation and to mitigate the influence of cognitive biases on the formulation of insanity opinions, with the final aim to reduce errors and controversies.
大量文献表明，旨在为法官做出裁决提供有影响力专家报告的精神错乱评估，其评分者间信度较低。本文回顾了传统精神错乱评估方法的局限性以及对法庭引入神经科学方法的批评。在此，我们解释为什么在我们看来，这些严重阻碍神经科学在法医环境中转化应用的批评经不起科学审视。此外，我们讨论了神经科学多模态方法如何提高精神错乱评估中的评分者间信度。至关重要的是，神经科学并非旨在引入基于大脑的精神错乱概念。事实上，责任和精神错乱的标准过去是、现在也应该是临床标准。相反，遵循证伪主义方法和证据收敛原则，神经科学多模态方法被提议作为一种提高精神错乱评估可靠性并减轻认知偏差对精神错乱意见形成影响的方式，最终目的是减少错误和争议。
