Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T21:08:34.317Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Neuroscience-based Psychiatric Assessments of Criminal Responsibility: Beyond Self-Report?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 June 2020

GERBEN MEYNEN
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Many legal systems have an insanity defense, which means that although a person has committed a crime, she is not held criminally responsible for the act. A challenge with regard to these assessments is that forensic psychiatrists have to rely to a considerable extent on the defendant's self-report. Could neuroscience be a way to make these evaluations more objective? The current value of neuroimaging in insanity assessments will be examined. The author argues that neuroscience can be valuable for diagnosing neurological illnesses, rather than psychiatric disorders. Next, he discusses to what extent neurotechnological 'mind reading' techniques, if they would become available in the future, could be useful to get beyond self-report in forensic psychiatry.

Keywords

insanity defenseforensic psychiatryneuroimagingneurological illnesspsychiatric disorders
Type
Departments and Columns
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 29 , Issue 3 , July 2020 , pp. 446 - 458
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Neuroethics Now welcomes articles addressing the ethical application of neuroscience in research and patient care, as well as its impact on society.

References

Notes

1. Bigenwald, A, Chambon, V. Criminal responsibility and neuroscience: No revolution yet. Frontiers in Psychology 2019;10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01406Google ScholarPubMed; Meynen, G. Legal insanity. Explorations in Psychiatry, Law, and Ethics. Switzerland: Springer; 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2. Not in all jurisdictions are behavioral experts allowed to express their opinion on the ‘ultimate legal issue’ of the defendant’s sanity; they may have to restrict themselves to what lies in the realm of the behavioral sciences.

3. A related issue concerns the theoretical question: Does neuroscience disprove free will and, if so, what are the consequences for criminal responsibility? I will not address this topic here, see note 1, Meynen 2016.

4. Scarpazza, C, Ferracuti, S, Miolla, S, Sartori, G. The charm of structural neuroimaging in insanity evaluations: Guidelines to avoid misinterpretation of the findings. Translational Psychiatry 2018;8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed. Gkotsi, GM, Gasser, J, Moulin, V. Neuroimaging in criminal trials and the role of psychiatrists expert witnesses: A case study. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 2019;65:101359.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

5. M’Naghten’s Case, 10 Cl. & Fin. 200, 8 Eng. Rep. 718 (H.L. 1843).

6. Model Penal Code (American Law Institute 1985).

7. On the (general) matters about the insanity defense discussed in this section, see also note 1, Meynen, 2016.

8. Simon, RJ, Ahn-Redding, H. The insanity defense, the world over. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books: 2006Google Scholar; Zhao, L, Ferguson, G. Understanding China’s mental illness defense, The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology 2013; 24:634-657CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Messina, E, Ferracuti, S, Nicolò, G, Ruggeri, M, Kooijmans, T, Meynen, G. Forensic psychiatric evaluations of defendants: Italy and the Netherlands compared. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 2019;66.Google ScholarPubMed

9. Slobogin, C. Introduction to this Special Issue: The characteristics of insanity and the insanity evaluation process. Behavioral Sciences and the Law 2018;36:271–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

10. See note 1, Meynen 2016.

11. Over-reliance on self-report where corroborating or refuting information is needed, is a recognized problem in forensic expert evaluations, see, for example, Zwartz, M. Report writing in the forensic context: Recurring problems and the use of a checklist to address them. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law 2018;25:583CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Clearly, there are other challenges in these reports as well, such as those pertaining to the evaluator’s biases, see note 4, Scarpazza et al. 2018. On self-report in (forensic) psychiatry, see also Meynen, G. Ethical issues to consider before introducing neurotechnological thought apprehension in psychiatry. AJOB Neuroscience 2019;10:5–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12. Linden, D. Overcoming self-report: Possibilities and limitations of brain imaging in psychiatry. In: Richmond, S, Rees, G, Edwards, SJL, eds. I Know What You’re Thinking: Brain imaging and mental privacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2012Google Scholar. And see on this matter: Meynen, G. Brain-based mind reading in forensic psychiatry: exploring possibilities and perils. Journal of Law and the Biosciences 2017;4:311–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

13. Freedman, D, Zaami, S. Neuroscience and mental state issues in forensic assessment. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 2019;65:101437.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

14. Still, the importance of subjective phenomena for diagnosis this is not unique for psychiatry; for instance, pain, a subjective experience, is also a criterion for migraine.

15. Not in all criminal justice systems though, and the extent of the use differs between jurisdictions. Meijer, EH, Van Koppen, PJ. Lie Detectors and the Law: The Use of the Polygraph in Europe. In: Canter, D, Žukauskienė, R, eds., Psychology and Law: Bridging the Gap. Aldershot: Ashgate; 2017Google Scholar; Iacono, WG, Ben-Shakhar, G. Current status of forensic lie detection with the comparison question technique: An update of the 2003 National Academy of Sciences report on polygraph testing. Law and Human Behaviour 2019;43(1):86–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

16. Grisso, T. guidance for improving forensic reports: A review of common errors. Open Access Journal of Forensic Psychology 2010;2:104.Google Scholar

17. As Fuger KD, Acklin MW, Nguyen AH, Ignacio LA, Gowensmith WN write: “Common public conceptions view the insanity defense as a loophole allowing the guilty to avoid responsibility for their actions.” Fuger, KD, Acklin, MW, Nguyen, AH, Ignacio, LA, Gowensmith, WN. Quality of criminal responsibility reports submitted to the Hawaii judiciary. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 2014;37(3):272–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

18. See note 16, Grisso 2010.

19. See also note 13, Freedman, Zaami 2019. See on detecting malingering and aggravation. Young, G.Malingering, feigning, and response bias in psychiatric/psychological injury. Implications for practice and court. Dordrecht: Springer; 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

20. Of course, many people speak the truth in the courtroom as well.

21. See also note 4, Gkotsi et al. 2019. Regarding the limited reliability of forensic psychiatric assessments, see also Gowensmith, WN, Murrie, DC, Boccaccini, MT, McNichols, BJ. Field reliability influences field validity: Risk assessments of individuals found not guilty by reason of insanity. Psychological Assessment 2017;29(6):786–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar. And see also note 4, Scarpazza et al. 2018.

22. Farahany, NA. Neuroscience and behavioral genetics in US criminal law: An empirical analysis. Journal of Law and the Biosciences 2015;2:485–509Google ScholarPubMed; See note 4, Gkotsi, et al. 2019; and de Kogel, CH, Westgeest, EJ. Neuroscientific and behavioral genetic information in criminal cases in the Netherlands. Journal of Law and the Biosciences 2015;2:580–605Google ScholarPubMed, respectively.

23. See note 22, de Kogel, Westgeest 2015:592–3 (with a minor change). See on this topic also Meynen, G. Legal Insanity and Neurolaw in the Netherlands: Developments and Debates. In: Moratti, S, Patterson, D, eds. Legal Insanity and the Brain: Science, Law and European Courts. Oxford: Hart; 2016.Google Scholar

24. They also looked at genetic information, but this was only used in a small proportion of the cases.

25. Pardo, MS, Patterson, D.Minds, brains, and law. The conceptual foundations of law and neuroscience. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

26. Or other behavioral experts.

27. ‘Veroordeling voor poging afpersing familie De Mol’ 2015 Jul 2; available at www.rechtspraak.nl (last accessed March 20, 2020).

28. Mobbs, D, Lau, HC, Jones, OD, Frith, CD. Law, responsibility, and the brain. PLoS Biology 2007;5(4):e103.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

29. Morse, SJ. Brain overclaim syndrome and criminal responsibility: A diagnostic note. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law 2006;3:397–412Google Scholar; see note 1, Bigenwald, Chambon 2019.

30. Shniderman, AB. The selective allure of neuroscience and its implications for the courtroom. The Jury Expert 2014;26(4);Google Scholar see note 4, Scarpazza et al. 2018.

31. See also note 4, Gkotsi et al. 2019.

32. On this and what follows, see note 11, Meynen 2019; and note 1, Meynen 2016.

33. See also note 23, Meynen 2016.

34. And clearly, there is some overlap, e.g., regarding Tourette’s syndrome and neurodegenerative disorders.

35. Baker, MG, Kale, R, Menken, M. The wall between neurology and psychiatry. British Medical Journal 2002;324:1468.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

36. Falissard, B, Monégat, M, Harper, G. Psychiatry, mental health, mental disability: Time for some necessary clarifications. European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 2017;26:1151–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

37. See note 4, Gkotsi et al. 2019.

38. See note 4, Gkotsi et al. 2019.

39. Slobogin, C. Neuroscience nuance: Dissecting the relevance of neuroscience in adjudicating criminal culpability. Journal of Law and the Biosciences 2017;4:577–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

40. Some use the term ‘brain reading,’ see, e.g., Roelfsema, PR, Denys, D, Klink, PC. Mind Reading and Writing: The Future of Neurotechnology. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2018;22:598–610.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed See also, for the matters discussed in this section, note 11, Meynen 2019.

41. Greely, HT. Mind reading, neuroscience, and the law. In: Morse, SJ, Roskies, AL, eds. A primer on Criminal Law and Neuroscience. New York: Oxford University Press; 2013.Google Scholar

42. Heyes, CM, Frith, CD. The cultural evolution of mind reading. Science 2014;344(6190):1243091.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

43. See note 42, Heyes, Frith 2014.

44. This, as well as what follows about neurotechnological mind reading, is in line with Meynen, G.Author’s response to peer commentaries: Brain-based mind reading: Conceptual clarifications and legal applications. Journal of Law and the Biosciences 2018;5(1)212–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

45. The term ‘mind reading’ is not ideal, because it does not concern actual ‘reading,’ but it is a term that is often used in this context (see note 42, Heyes, Frith 2014). See also Ienca, M, Andorno, R. Towards new human rights in the age of neuroscience and neurotechnology. Life Sciences, Society and Policy 2017;13:5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed I will not use quotation marks around mind reading further in the text, but they are, in a way, intended.

46. Nishimoto, S, Vu, AT, Naselaris, T, Benjamini, Y, Yu, B, Gallant, JL. Reconstructing visual experiences from brain activity evoked by natural movies. Current Biology 2011;21:1644.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

47. Mason, R. A., and Just, M. A.. neural representations of physics concepts. Psychological Science 27:904-913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

48. Just, MA, Pan, L, Cherkassky, VL, McMakin, DL, Cha, C, Nock, MK et al. Machine learning of neural representations of suicide and emotion concepts identifies suicidal youth. Nature Human Behavior 2017;1:911–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

49. Kübler A. The history of BCI: From a vision for the future to real support for personhood in people with locked-in syndrome Neuroethics 2019, epub ahead of print, May 29, 2019; Khalili Ardali, M, Rana, A, Purmohammad, M, Birbaumer, N, Chaudhary, U. Semantic and BCI-performance in completely paralyzed patients: Possibility of language attrition in completely locked in syndrome. Brain and Language 2019;194:93–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

50. Brooks L. Bailey Gwynne murder accused: ‘I opened knife to scare him off.’ The Guardian 2016 March 3; available at www.theguardian.com (last accessed March 20, 2020).

51. Regarding neurological applications, see Roskies, AL. Mind reading, lie detection, and privacy. In: Clausen, J, Levy, N, eds. Handbook of Neuroethics. Dordrecht: Springer; 2015Google Scholar, and regarding possible future psychiatric applications, see note 11, Meynen 2019.

52. Szmukler, G, Appelbaum, PS. Treatment pressures, leverage, coercion, and compulsion in mental health care. Journal of Mental Health 2008;17(3):233–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

53. See on these topics note 11, Meynen 2019.

54. Buoli, M, Giannuli, AS. The political use of psychiatry: A comparison between totalitarian regimes. International Journal of Social Psychiatry 2017;63(2):169–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

55. Meynen, G. A neurolaw perspective on psychiatric assessments of criminal responsibility: Decision-making, mental disorder, and the brain. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 2013;36:93–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

56. See on what follows also in note 1, Meynen 2016, and Bigenwald, Chambon 2019.

57. See also Yaffe, G. Mind-Reading by Brain-Reading and Criminal Responsibility. In: Patterson, D, M.S. Pardo, MS, eds. Philosophical Foundations of Law and Neuroscience. New York: Oxford University Press; 2016.Google Scholar

58. Wegner, DM, Schneider, DJ, Carter, SR, White, TL. Paradoxical effects of thought suppression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1987;53:5–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

59. Abramowitz, JS, Tolin, DF, Street, GP. Paradoxical effects of thought suppression: A meta-analysis of controlled studies. Clinical Psychology Review 2001;21:683–703.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

60. Purdon, C.Thought suppression and psychopathology. Behaviour Research and Therapy 1999;37:1029–54 .CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed