Neuroscience evidence to verdicts and punishment

The defense using the excuse of insanity relies on the premise that it is awfully wrong to hold an irrational person liable and responsible for his actions. Punishing a man who lacks and fails to reason and think logically is deemed undignified and is the same as punishing an object or an animal. It states that during the time that a deviant act was committed a person who is suffering from insanity is experiencing a defect in his mind, a disease or something, which prevents him from thinking rationally thus an understanding of his actions their results are failed to achieved.

Furthermore, it explains that a person does not understand what he is doing, as a result he does not know what is right from wrong. The American Law of Instititute, thus developed a program that would test the sanity of offenders. The institute also stated that a person is not responsible for criminal conduct as a result of his suffering from mental illness. The excuse of infancy is another doctrine that that is necessary and could be linked directly with the field of neuroscience. This kind of defense excuses an offended on the grounds that a criminal conduct is committed by a person falling below the certain age limit.

The age limit is decided by the government. Offendants who fall below the prescribed age are considered infants and are incapable of conduct of crimes since they lack the needed intent (Dalby, 139). Children are exempted from the adult’s criminal justice system. In response to this, the government adapts a juvenile system programs. After determination if an individual is guilty, the next process that would be conducted by the criminal law is imposing of punishment. The field of Neuroscience also affects the decisions that a jury would hand.

With proper testimonies from experts and documentations of the nature, activities and behavior of an individual’s mind, a court sentence verdict can be made lower. With the effect of neuroscience evidence to verdicts and punishment, it is then fitting to understand if the different neuroscience evidences such as neuroimages are accepted in court procedures. Today, some defendants have been successful in getting and furnishing the jury with neuroscience evidence. However, it is not entirely and overwhelmingly successful as a number of court hearings do not allow inclusion of neuroscience evidence.

Success rates of using the said evidence that eventually it will acquit or give a defendant a lesser charge is also hard to calculate as bulk of cases ended in plea bargains rather than acquittal. An example of a trial that ended in a bargain was found in the case involving United Way executive William Aramony. The offender was charged of numerous number of embezzlement from a charity fund. In a n effort to free himself of charges, he introduced neuroimage evidences indicating that he suffereing from brain atropy.

Brain Atropy is a condition that affects the human brain. It is characterized by the loss of brain cells and eventually losses of connection between neurons. The condition results to a decrease in function of the area the brain controls. After Aramony has presented his evidence, a favorable bargain was then arranged. However, unlike Aramony, other defendants have not been successful with their use of neroimaging documents as admissible evidence in court procedures. The failure is showcased in United State v. Anderson.

In the procedure, the offender tries to persuade the decision by the jury by presenting neuroscience documents and backing it up wit a neuroradiologist testimony. Anderson claimed that a depression and paranoia induced by a brain damage prevented him from making a clear and logical thought, and as a result a murder was committed. The jury though was not persuaded and instead convicted with murder. In another cases U. S v. Mezvinsky that defendant was ruled not be entitled to introduce PET scan evidence. The ruling was made since the offendant was indicted 66 times for fraud.