Introduction
What if the law were able to get into the human brain and grasp the why behind human behaviour? This is no longer a question of science fiction. Rather, the new field of Neurolaw studies how neuroscience—the study of the brain and nervous system—can and will translate into areas of law, in courtrooms, and in public policy. Neurolaw invites us to reconsider some of the most basic tenets of law, including free will, intent, and responsibility, and it raises new questions related to topics such as criminal responsibility and mental privacy.
Although neurolaw is a new field, it is beginning to impact courts, law schools, and policy in the immediate foreseeable future global landscape.
The Evolution of Neurolaw
Law has always had an interest in the human mind. Criminal law’s emphasis on mens rea (guilty mind) and the “insanity defense” shows that mental state plays a role in ascribing guilt. What is new is neuroscience’s ability to produce biological evidence of how the brain works (or does not work).
In the 20th century, tools such as electroencephalograms (EEGs) and later functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRIs) allowed scientists to track the functioning of the brain in real time. This has paved the way for the use of brain scans in criminal trials, often being used as mitigating evidence. For instance, accepting brain imaging to argue for less culpability in death penalty cases is an example of U.S. courts considering an impaired neurological functioning as negating criminal responsibility entirely.
In India, neurolaw has yet to become societal, but mental health issues have long played a role in criminal law. Criminal defenses in Indian law have long focused on mental health and include provisions like section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, which states that, “Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, is, by reason of unsoundness of mind, incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.” If neuroscience were to be involved in recognizing unsoundness of mind, it could certainly shape these inquiries more scientifically.
Neurolaw in Criminal Justice
Criminal law is the one area where neurolaw has had the greatest impact. Courts must regularly ask: Was the defendant able to form intent? Did they act voluntarily, or, instead, out of an irresistible impulse? Neuroscience helps to provide more objective answers.
• Mitigation in Sentencing: In the U.S. case, Roper v. Simmons, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the death penalty for juveniles, citing research on adolescent brain development that showed youthful immaturity affects impulse control. This represents a principle of neurolaw: for punishment to be just, it must take the constraints of the brain into account.
• Predicting Dangerousness: Some jurisdictions are experimenting with the use of neurological data as an initial step toward determining the likelihood of reoffending. Although this is methodologically troubling on ethical grounds, these initiatives illustrate neurolaw’s potential role in adjustments to parole and criminal sentencing.
• Indian Environment: In 2008, a trial court in the state of Maharashtra controversially admitted “brain electrical oscillation signature profiling” (BEOSP) as evidence of guilt. The BEOSP ruling was legally condemned and later restricted, but it initiated debates about whether neuroscience can or should be utilized to develop a “truth detection” methodology.
Neurolaw and Evidence Law
One of the most complicated issues is whether, and to what degree, neuroscience-based evidence should be allowed into court. In the United States (U.S.), the Daubert standard requires expert testimony based on scientific reasoning to be sufficiently valid and reliable to be admitted as evidence in court. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, comprehensively governs admissibility in India. Section 45 allows expert opinion on science/medicine.
The problem, however, is that the field is still developing. Brain scans reveal correlations, but not necessarily causation. Additionally, recent neuroscience research warns against juries being too influenced by the apparent “objectivity” of colorful images of the brain, sometimes called the “Christmas tree effect”. There must be a fine balance between openness to science and a distrust or hesitance to rely too completely on it.
Rights, Ethics, and Neurolaw
Neurolaw isn’t limited to criminal cases; it has implications for fundamental rights and ethical issues.
• Right to Privacy, Cognitive Liberty: If brain-computer interfaces or neuroimaging can decode private thoughts, are they violating the constitutional right to privacy established in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India? Some scholars have argued for a new right to “cognitive liberty”—the freedom to manage our own brain states free from government interference.
• Consent and Volition: Can someone truly “consent” when their decision-making capacity has been affected by neurological impairments? If so, this has implications for contracts, medical law, and anything else we agree to.
• Determinism vs. Volition: If neuroscience demonstrates that our behavior is simply a product of brain chemistry, then moral responsibility is undermined. While the law has always presumed free will, neurolaw muddies the water.
Emerging Technologies and the Future of Neurolaw
The future of neurolaw will depend on emerging technologies, which are advancing at a rapid rate:
• Brain–Computer Interfaces (BCIs) will allow individuals to operate devices via direct thought. If such devices were to be hacked, or if the individual enters unintended thoughts that then trigger actions causing harm, what would happen?
• The intersection between Artificial Intelligence and neuroscience could provide predictions about behaviour that will be increasingly accurate. Should courts use these predictions when determining sentences?
• Neuro-enhancement drugs, or implants, will bring to light ethical fairness in education, employment, and also in sports. If a student takes a different “memory-enhancing” drug to help them on an exam, is that cheating?
Ultimately, when these technologies emerge, they will present new challenges for the law to deal with, when traditional understandings of legal categories don’t accommodate the technology.
Criticisms and Challenges
While neurolaw holds promise, there are considerable critiques of it:
1. Overstating Neuroscience: Critics argue that brain science is sometimes oversold, and correlating something with something else is not always causational.
2. Ethical Risks: Data from your brain can be used for surveillance and coercion, which takes away your liberty
3. Differences in Culture: Neuroscience does not take into account the differences in culture; additionally, the environment we live in can have an impact on behavior, and for legal-related purposes, that could be vis-à-vis.
4. Definitely no framework: Countries like India, the laws in neurolaw are still very unregulated, a lot of potential misuse without any framework for regulation
Conclusion
Neurolaw is at the forefront of law and science. It questions deep-seated assumptions about free will, responsibility, and justice. It has sought to offer tools that might allow a legal system to be more precise and humane. But it also raises the potential for misuse, dependence, and incursions on rights such as privacy and autonomy.
For India and other developing jurisdictions, the key is to draw on evidence from the international context whilst establishing context-relevant safety mechanisms. The law has to approach neuroscience in moderation – to appreciate its promise and also its pitfalls. The neurolaw dialogue has just begun, and it is destined to redefine the future of law and society in general.
Bibliography
Primary Sources
• Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
• Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1.
• People v. Weinstein, 591 N.Y.S.2d 715 (Sup. Ct. 1992).
• Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005).
• Indian Penal Code, No. 45 of 1860.
• Indian Evidence Act, No. 1 of 1872.
Secondary Sources
• Anand Giridharadas, India’s Novel Use of Brain Scans in Courts Is Debated, N.Y. Times (Sept. 14, 2008).
• Oliver R. Goodenough & Micaela Tucker, Law and Cognitive Neuroscience, 6 Ann. Rev. L. & Soc. Sci. 61 (2010).
• Stephen J. Morse, Brain Overclaim Syndrome and Criminal Responsibility: A Diagnostic Note, 3 Ohio St. J. Crim. L. 397 (2006).
• Michael S. Pardo & Dennis Patterson, Philosophical Foundations of Law and Neuroscience, 2010 U. Ill. L. Rev. 1211.
• Nita A. Farahany, Neuroscience and Behavioral Genetics in U.S. Criminal Law: An Empirical Analysis, 2 J.L. & Biosciences 485 (2015).
Also Read:
Rights of undertrial prisoners in India
How To Send A Legal Notice In India
