Application Of Neuro-based Evidence In Law Practice

The development of technology can always bring some new questions into law. Neuroscience, becoming an independent discipline in1990s, however, not only brings new issues in law, but also offers a new angle and way to figure out the existent puzzles of law. Therefore, a new inter-discipline has been born, that is Neurolaw. The connotation and denotation of this subject is more than large, but in practice, usage of neuroscience-based evidence in court has been researched extensively, so to speak, it is the most important part in the whole subject. In the dissertation, we discussed how many ways the Neuro-technology can aid in law, especially in court occasion. Besides, we argued the disadvantages of neuro-based evidence which used in suit and discussed the prospects of neuro-based evidence in future. Meanwhile, we also realized the importance of justice of procedure so that the new technology can be used in a correct way.The key technology of Neurolaw we introduced in this dissertation is fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging). As the fundamental technology of modern neuroscience, it can scan people’s brain and open the black box of human beings. It is used in studying people’s behaviour and thoughts. Similarly, law is a subject which studied human’s behavior as well. fMRI can be the lie-detector, the true memories’ tester and a judge of estimating adolescent, addict and abnormals. It has already been a important role in real case, but the legislation has not followed the neurolaw’s step yet. The first task of knowing how to use high technology correctly and make the legal provision properly is to understand the advantages and disadvantages of fMRI using in court. We summarized the fMRI hurdles of both techniques and social issues by analyzing the practice in the United States. It is:1. Possible constitutional and human rights violations (illegal search, right to silence, freedom of thought, right to privacy, human dignity, right to integrity of the person, and protection of personal data;2. Probative value, unfair prejudice, and undermining the province of the Jury;3. Acceptivity and operability in publicAfter all, technology is an instrument to help people simplifying the procedure and increasing the efficiency, but not replacing people’s judgment.