Will neuroscientific revolutionize the criminal justice system? – Vanderbilt Law Schoolvanderbilt Law School

Legal and neuroscientist expert Francis X. Shen held on March 4 with the title “How neurosciences can revolutionize criminal law”. In the lecture, the intersection of the neuroscience and the legal system was examined and emphasizes the potential and current limits of neuroscience in the design of criminal law.

Francis X. Shen is a respected professor of law and neurosciences at the University of Minnesota, where he heads the laboratory for the Shen Neural Law. His work includes several institutions, including the Massachusetts General Hospital Department of Psychiatry and the research network of the Macarthur Foundation for Law and Neurosciences. He has co -established several books on law and neurosciences and actively contributes to political development on site.

Shen's lecture was about the idea that neuroscience has not yet revolutionized the punitive justice system, but this is to be done in the future. He emphasized how important it is to differentiate between “never” and “not”, and argued that the current neuroscientism cannot completely answer critical legal questions, but will bridge the gap between brain science and law. “If the neuroscientific has nothing to tell the law, we should find a different conversation,” he said. “But if the answer is not yet 'not', we open some really wonderful questions.”

Shen outlined two pillars that justify the integration of neurosciences into legal systems.

First, he emphasized that every mental process is facilitated from decision -making to emotions to emotions through “chemical and electrical communication between the 86 billion neurons and the other cells in our brain”. Understanding this interaction is the key to assessing human behavior in legal contexts.

Second, he pointed out that legal principles, especially in criminal law, revolve around concepts such as intent, decision -making and guilt. In view of the fact that the neurosciences offer insight into the processing of information on the processing of information, it has the potential to improve legal decisions. “The law takes care of how we process information. (It asks) “Why can't you act as we or you sometimes want? How do we become emotional? How do we make decisions? '”

He recognized that two significant hurdles in the integration of neurosciences into the criminal judiciary is the individualization of neurosciences. While neuroscientism studies provide general insights into the behavior at group level, legal cases require individual reviews. Current science is struggling to apply general neurological findings exactly to certain people.

“The law needs individual, precise and implementable knowledge. It is not enough to just say: “Oh hey, we generally know something about the way you use information with substances,” he said.

Another major challenge is the complexity of the human brain. Understanding the full role of the brain in behavior and decision -making remains very complex, which makes it difficult to draw final legal conclusions.

Despite these challenges, Shen referred to real applications of neurosciences in the legal area. Judgments of the Supreme Court referred to neuroscience research to limit the punishments for young people and quoted their still developing brains. “One of the things that the neurosciences offer the law is similar to other areas – new knowledge to help the law. But it's not just knowing. We will also give us new tools, ”he said. Cases such as Julie Eldreds in which neurosciences were used to argue against the punishment of the relapse in opioid dependency underline the potential role of brain science in the design of rehabilitation guidelines.

In addition, the development of portable MRI technology and AI-controlled analysis in the future could become more accessible and legally relevant. “We are now moving outside the clinic – so we can bring brain scans to where they are needed,” he said.

Shen predicted that the neurosciences will increasingly influence criminal law, especially in convicts, probation decisions and forensic evaluations. He emphasized the need for ethical guardrails to ensure that neuroscientific applications do not increase distortions or inequalities in the judicial system. “Even the Nobel Prize -made science may not be ready for use in the courtroom,” he said.

He also emphasized the importance of engagement in the community and found that many marginalized communities reject up-and-coming neuro technologies and demanded interdisciplinary cooperation to bring legal scientists, neuroscientists, political decision-makers and practitioners together in order to develop responsible applications of legal nine oscilations in law.

Shen came to the conclusion by asking the legal professions to stay up to date on progress in neurotechnology, since they are likely to change important legal documents and practices. “Neurolaw comes and maybe earlier than you think,” he said.

The lecture respected by Weber is sponsored Weaver family program in law, brain sciences and behavior At the Vanderbilt Law School, which is directed by Owen Joneswho keep the Glenn M. Weaver, MD, and Mary Ellen Weaver chairman in law, brain and behavior. The Weaver program was in 2023 with a foundation of 3.85 million US dollars of the Glenn M. Weaver Foundation in honor of Dr. Weaver, a pioneer in the field of forensic psychiatry, his wife Mary Ellen Weaver and the Weaver family founded.

See a recording of Shaw's conversation below or on the YouTube channel from Vanderbilt Law.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkt-8wgcjto