This Article investigates the potential contribution of neuroscience to policy-making and, most of all, judicial decision-making in the realm of criminal justice. In recent years, the advance in neuroscientific research did not only exert a peculiar fascination on legal scholars; it also captured the attention of practitioners and judges constantly eager, respectively, to make their cases stronger and enhance the accuracy of their decisions. After briefly exploring the relationship between law and neuroscience and their possible fields of interplay, I describe the major neuroscientific techniques utilized for evidentiary purposes in criminal proceedings. Finally, I discuss the issues of admissibility and use of neuroscientific expert evidence in the courtroom, highlighting the risks linked to the vast difference between the aims and language of law and those of neuroscience.
|Translated title of the contribution||Neuroscientific evidence: On the possibilities and limits of its use in the field of criminal justice|
|Number of pages||26|
|State||Published - Jan 1 2016|
- Criminal justice
- Expert testimony
- Novel scientific evidence