What if we could peep into a brain and see guilt or innocence? Brain scanning technology is trying to break its way into the courtroom, but can we—and should we—determine criminal fate based on high-tech images of the brain? Aim of any trial is to know, what was there on ones' mind when he committed the crime. Earlier judgements were purely based on facts and figures, that the jury believed in. But now, with growing technology in neural science, there is a better understanding of what was there in ones' mind. While neuroscience can tell us a lot about how the brain works, it has not yet produced much data that can be used to decide criminal or civil disputes. But that hasn't stopped lawyers from trying to enter it as evidence. The question is, how reliable are these evidence? One should be able to testify for himself. Was his actions intentional or was it not? Taking FMRI and testifying for oneself will help us identify answers to questions, such as follows: Was the person responsible for his behavior? What was the person's mental state at the time of the act? What are the effects …show more content…
district judge for the southern district of New York. He also says that this is "still an infant science." "There is a great danger, I think, in terms of using it in the law." Today, though, "it's probably of little or no use" legally, but people "are waiting for science to come up with greater specificity."
But how is specificity possible with such a complex structure of brain. People's brain varies from each other. Any specific conclusion that we make is based on the average results. But what we really must know is, something more individualistic. What was there in ones' mind, exactly at that point of time. Average results are not much reliable in this case, as it cannot explain much about