Today’s idea: Advances in neuroscience put it increasingly in conflict with criminal law: If all our mental states can ultimately be reduced to neurophysiological conditions, and there is really no such thing as free will, how can people be held accountable for crimes?

Neuroscience | In Miller-McCune magazine, Michael Haederle writes that new theories of brain function and “neuroimaging” techniques are challenging the law’s view of people “essentially as rational actors, capable of forming intentions, weighing the consequences of their actions and controlling their behavior”:

Seventh Art Releasing

A core tenet of the new neuroscience is that there is no single place inside our brain where free will is exercised and a kernel of “self” resides. Instead, the science suggests, the mental states we experience are like a mirage, arising from highly complex interactions of myriad brain systems involving electrical signals that are governed by the laws of physics. It is a highly mechanistic model that many believe ultimately denies that free will is truly free.

Yet this might be only one way the science could affect the law, he writes:

Science Photo Library

Suppose a neural scan could determine whether someone was in a vegetative or minimally conscious state? What if an fMRI [functional magnetic resonance imaging scan] could objectively measure the degree of pain and suffering someone was experiencing in a personal injury case? Neuroimaging might even be used to measure a criminal’s risk of recidivism or, conversely, the extent of his rehabilitation. And the time may not be far off when a neural scan will substitute for conventional lie detectors.

[ Miller-McCune]

More Recommended Reading: