Abstract
Neurocriminology, an interdisciplinary field merging neuroscience and criminology, investigates the role of brain abnormalities in criminal behaviour. This study explores how neuroscientific advancements influence legal understandings of criminal responsibility. Employing a qualitative research approach, we examine case law, legal precedents, and neuroscientific findings to analyse their impact on sentencing, culpability, and rehabilitation. Results indicate that courts increasingly consider neurocriminological evidence, yet its application remains controversial due to ethical concerns and evidentiary reliability. While neurocriminology provides deeper insights into the biological underpinnings of criminal behaviour, it also raises significant legal and ethical dilemmas. The integration of brain imaging techniques, such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and positron emission tomography (PET), in courtrooms has led to evolving jurisprudence regarding diminished responsibility and sentencing mitigation. Despite its potential to inform justice, the field faces challenges related to evidentiary admissibility, the risk of deterministic interpretations, and the broader societal implications of attributing criminal acts to neurological factors. This paper concludes that while neurocriminology enriches criminal law, its integration requires standardized guidelines to maintain justice, scientific integrity, and legal consistency. Future research should focus on refining ethical protocols and legal frameworks to ensure that neuroscientific advancements support, rather than undermine, the principles of justice and accountability.
Keywords: Neurocriminology, Criminal Responsibility, Legal System, Brain Science, Culpability, Sentencing, Neuroscientific Evidence
Introduction
Neurocriminology is a rapidly emerging field that examines the intersection of brain science and criminal behaviour. This interdisciplinary domain seeks to uncover the neurological and genetic factors that may contribute to criminal tendencies, challenging traditional legal understandings of culpability and intent. Legal systems around the world are grappling with the implications of these findings, particularly in determining criminal responsibility, sentencing decisions, and rehabilitation approaches.[1]
The notion that biological factors influence behaviour is not new; historical theories of criminality, such as those proposed by Cesare Lombroso in the 19th century, suggested that criminals possess inherent physiological traits that predispose them to unlawful activities.[2] However, modern neuroscience has provided empirical evidence supporting the idea that structural and functional abnormalities in specific brain regions, such as the prefrontal cortex and amygdala, are linked to impulsive and violent behaviour.[3] This raises critical questions: Should individuals with neurological impairments be held fully accountable for their actions? Can brain scans and other neuroscientific tools reliably distinguish between voluntary and involuntary criminal acts?
This paper aims to analyse the role of neurocriminology in shaping legal frameworks, examining the extent to which neuroscientific evidence is accepted in courts, its reliability as forensic evidence, and the ethical dilemmas associated with its application. The study also explores how different jurisdictions incorporate neurocriminological insights into their legal systems, comparing cases where brain science has played a pivotal role in determining sentencing outcomes.
Furthermore, the legal implications of neurocriminology extend beyond individual cases to broader policy considerations. Lawmakers and legal scholars are debating the necessity of updating legal doctrines to accommodate scientific discoveries without undermining the fundamental principles of justice. If brain abnormalities can influence criminal behaviour, should legal systems adopt a more rehabilitative approach rather than focusing solely on punitive measures? How can courts ensure that neuroscientific evidence is used responsibly and does not lead to deterministic or reductionist interpretations of human behaviour?
By delving into these questions, this paper seeks to provide a comprehensive analysis of neurocriminology’s impact on criminal responsibility, its potential benefits, and the risks associated with its misuse. Understanding the relationship between brain science and the legal system is crucial in ensuring that justice systems remain fair, scientifically informed, and ethically grounded in the face of rapidly advancing neuroscientific research.
[1] Raine, A. (2013). The Anatomy of Violence: The Biological Roots of Crime. Pantheon Books.
[2] Lombroso, C. (1876). Criminal Man. Duke University Press (2006 translation).
[3] Glenn, A. L., & Raine, A. (2014). “Neurocriminology: Implications for the Punishment, Prediction, and Prevention of Criminal Behaviour.” Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 15(1), 54-63.