Browsing by Subject "aivokuvantamismenetelmät"

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.