The Significance Of Brain Scans In The Courtroom By Andreas Kuersten

The article “Brain Scans in the Courtroom” written by Andreas Kuersten is about advances in neuroimaging and how they may benefit in a trial of law. Kuerstens’ main objective is to argue whether or not the advancement in neuroimaging (while helping scientists with their understanding of the brain) can bring forth more evidence into the courtroom by using brain scans of the accused. The significance of these scans is that they can be used in helping a jury rule someone insane, thus meaning the defendant was unaware that his or her actions were unjust, or proving that he or she was in a right state of mind during the crime(s). The article provides convincing scientific evidence promoting the use of these scans making it difficult to deny their

By claiming insanity a defendant has stated that he or she did not know the action was wrong and could not fully comprehend the results of this action. Kuersten then supplies the reader with more details of a particular case, the Reagan shooting, by stating how the depositions from a Neurologists and a Psychiatrist's benefited the case, permitting the judge and jury to have a more scientific understanding of the evidence. “The shooter’s brain has relatively enlarged sulci and ventricles, signifying shrinkage and decay. A psychiatrists testifies that these characteristics are associated with Schizophrenia.” With this knowledge about the defendant's brain jurors may be leaning towards the insanity plea with sympathetic views towards the defendant's actions. Brain scans have been used in the courtroom before and have proved to be valuable evidence in some cases, but due to some of the limitations they hold not all courtrooms may be presenting brain scans to defend or prosecute a case at this point in

Kuerston contradicts her initial statement in order to argue both sides of the question posed at the beginning of the article by exemplifying two problems jurors and prosecutors face when evaluating brain scans before stating their plea. “At trial we are concerned with an individual’s mental faculties when he committed the crime. Therefore, post-hoc imaging provides little evidentiary value.” The following statement is the second contradiction to brain scans in a courtroom. “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.” These statements make jurors think about the person on trial more deeply before making an expeditious