Brain scan and thought; Romansh? (Introduction)

by David Turell , Tuesday, November 24, 2015, 15:34 (3074 days ago)

This article discusses the value of brain scanning in determining what was on the killer's mind at the time of the killing or attempt:-http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/44604/title/Opinion--Brain-Scans-in-the-Courtroom/-"Advances in neuroimaging capabilities have had a priceless impact on our understanding of the brain. The analyses made possible by these innovations have fielded incredible correlative and statistical data, linking what people think and do to specific brain structures and activities. But correlation is not causation, and these data have significant limitations when applied to an individual at a criminal trial. -"First, neuroimaging techniques produce pictures of a given brain at one point in time. At trial, however, we are concerned with an individual's mental faculties when he committed the crime. Therefore, post-hoc imaging provides little evidentiary value. -"Second, firm causal links between physical brain abnormalities—whether structural or functional—and mental characteristics are thus far largely lacking. While some irregularities, such as tumors or unusual metabolic activity in certain brain regions, correlate with deviant thoughts and behavior, there are also many people who possess these characteristics without engaging in either. -"With these issues in mind, let's return to the case and question presented at the beginning of this article: What did the neuroimaging evidence tell you about Hinckley's mental state when he opened fire? -"Not much.-***-"As our ability to image the brain becomes ever greater, debates over the use of neuroimaging at criminal trial will likely intensify. Such conversations must be grounded in neuroimaging's actual capabilities and the benefits and drawbacks of bringing this evidence into courtrooms to determine criminal responsibility."-Comment. My feelings exactly. This legal discussion is a warning. Use science logically and only to the limits of what can be reasonably revealed.