Browsing by Subject "aivokuvantaminen"

The purpose of this thesis is to give an overview of how neuroimaging is used in courts. It is discussed how neuroimaging-based information is applied in trials, how usual it is and what problems may rise because of it. In addition, it is described which laws regulate brain studies and the use of their results. There have been conflicting opinions whether bringing neuroimaging to court is a good or a bad idea. Constantly increasing debate motivates to find out what is going on within the field of neurolaw according to recent research. For the purpose of this thesis it was made an Ovid Medline search using keywords neuroscien*, brain imag*, court* and law. The source material was completed by suitable articles found from reference lists and from Journal of Biosciences and Law since 2015. Neuroimaging-based information is used in court mostly for diagnostic purposes and as defense’s mitigating evidence. Interpreting the results of brain studies is often contradictory and the evidence may be presented without a well-founded reason. Research also supports that neuroscientific evidence may mislead decision making considering death penalty and accountability. Research is aiming to come up with more reliable neuroscientific applications such as fMRI-based lie detection. The amount of trials that use neuroscientific evidence differ from country to country but there is a globally upward trend. According to current knowledge, there is no specific neurolaw issued anywhere in the world, but existing regulations considering medical research in general are applied on neurosciences. Despite the missing legislation, applying neuroimaging in court neither seems to violate any human rights nor has it led to any more misuse than any other methods applied in court.

Abstract Background and Objectives. Psychopathy is defined as a personality construction characterized by deviant interpersonal, affective, lifestyle related and antisocial traits, such as manipulativeness, pathological lying, emotional coldness, lack of empathy, remorse and long-term goals, impulsiveness and usually also criminal lifestyle. The prevalence of psychopathy is less than one percent in population, though it is much higher among incarcerated people. Therefore, psychopathy is considered a major social and financial burden to the society. There have been made plenty of research about neurobiological and physiological components of psychopathy. This study aims to specify those neurobiological and physical components that separate psychopaths from other people. Research methods. The data was gathered mainly using Google Scholar website. The aim was to search for peer reviewed articles from years 2004 to 2019 with keywords “psychopath” or ”psychopathy” combined with words such as ”criminality”, ”neurology”, ”neurobiology”, ”neurophysiology” and ”neuroimaging”. Inner references of research articles were also utilized. Results and Conclusions. The current neurobiological models of psychopathy present amygdala and ventromedial prefrontal cortex and these dysfunctional connections as well as paralimbic system and its dysfunction as the typical neurobiological components of psychopathy. Neurobiological anomalies connected to psychopathy include reduced amygdala volume and activation, hippocampal structural asymmetry, reduced frontal lobe activation and abnormal activity in networks connecting limbic areas. These are especially seen with criminal psychopaths. Also, low skin conductance, weak activation in corrugator supercilii muscle and weak or absent startle response are seen to be connected to psychopathy. These findings can be accounting for lack of emotional reactions such as fear and empathy and also emotional coldness. Generalization of results is impaired by homogeneity of samples resulting from concentrating on prisoners and incarcerated population, as well as small sample sizes. Based on the study, it´s possible to understand the essence of psychopathy as a construction, that links neurobiological and physiological anomalies and their synergies.

Tavoitteet: Valemuistot ovat normaali osa adaptiivista muistitoimintaa, ja niitä aiheuttavat usein ulkoiset häiriötekijät ja muistin rekonstruktiivisuus. Valemuistot ovat suuri ongelma rikosoikeudelle erityisesti virheellisten silminnäkijätunnistusten vuoksi, jotka ovat johtaneet lukemattomien syyttömien henkilöiden tuomitsemiseen. Vielä ei ole kuitenkaan löydetty luotettavaa keinoa erottaa valemuistoja todellisista muistoista. Valemuistojen syntymekanismeja on tutkittu paljon, mutta niiden neuraalisesta perustasta tiedetään vasta vähän. Tutkielman tavoitteena oli tarkastella valemuistoja koskevia neurotieteen löydöksiä kognitiivisten teorioiden valossa sekä arvioida, voisiko neurotieteen aivotutkimusmenetelmillä havaita valemuistoja rikosoikeudessa. Menetelmät: Tutkimuskirjallisuutta haettiin Ovid Medline, PubMed, APA PsycInfo ja Google Scholar -tietokannoista hakusanoilla ”false memory”, ”neuroscience”, ”imaging” ja ”neural” sekä aiheeseen liittyvien artikkelien lähdeluetteloista. Tuloksista rajattiin pois tutkimukset, joissa valemuistot olivat syntymekanismiltaan patologisia, sekä tutkimukset, joissa aivokuvantaminen oli suoritettu mieleen painamisen aikana. Tulokset ja johtopäätökset: Tutkimusnäytön perusteella valemuistot ja todelliset muistot aktivoivat aivoja osittain samalla tavalla, mutta huomattavia eroavaisuuksiakin on havaittavissa. Valemuistojen kannalta keskeisiä aivoalueita vaikuttavat olevan erityisesti etuotsalohkojen ja limbisen järjestelmän rakenteet. Aiheeseen liittyvä tutkimusnäyttö on kuitenkin vielä vähäistä ja jokseenkin ristiriitaista, ja siihen liittyy monia käytännön ongelmia. Jatkotutkimusta vaaditaan ennen kuin aivotutkimusmenetelmiä voidaan luotettavasti hyödyntää rikosoikeudessa todellisten muistojen ja valemuistojen erottamiseen.