Brain Images as Legal Evidence

Episteme 5 (3):359-373 (2008)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This paper explores whether brain images may be admitted as evidence in criminal trials under Federal Rule of Evidence 403, which weighs probative value against the danger of being prejudicial, confusing, or misleading to fact finders. The paper summarizes and evaluates recent empirical research relevant to these issues. We argue that currently the probative value of neuroimages for criminal responsibility is minimal, and there is some evidence of their potential to be prejudicial or misleading. We also propose experiments that will directly assess how jurors are influenced by brain images

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,150

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Does 'ought' conversationally implicate 'can'?Bart Streumer - 2003 - European Journal of Philosophy 11 (2):219–228.
Non-Inferential Moral Knowledge.Elizabeth Tropman - 2011 - Acta Analytica 26 (4):355-366.
Problems for Sinnott-Armstrong's moral contrastivism.Peter Baumann - 2008 - Philosophical Quarterly 58 (232):463–470.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
102 (#171,651)

6 months
13 (#197,903)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author Profiles

Adina Roskies
Dartmouth College

Citations of this work

Précis of Neuroethics.Joshua May - forthcoming - Philosophy and the Mind Sciences.
Brain Privacy and the Case of Cannibal Cop.Mark Tunick - 2017 - Res Publica 23 (2):179-196.
Neuroscience May Supersede Ethics and Law.Thomas R. Scott - 2012 - Science and Engineering Ethics 18 (3):433-437.

View all 8 citations / Add more citations