Neuroimage Evidence and the Insanity Defense
Version of Record online: 10 JUL 2011
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Behavioral Sciences & the Law
Special Issue: Current Directions
Volume 29, Issue 4, pages 592–607, July/August 2011
How to Cite
Schweitzer, N. J. and Saks, M. J. (2011), Neuroimage Evidence and the Insanity Defense. Behav. Sci. Law, 29: 592–607. doi: 10.1002/bsl.995
- Issue online: 27 JUL 2011
- Version of Record online: 10 JUL 2011
The introduction of neuroscientific evidence in criminal trials has given rise to fears that neuroimagery presented by an expert witness might inordinately influence jurors' evaluations of the defendant. In this experiment, a diverse sample of 1,170 community members from throughout the U.S. evaluated a written mock trial in which psychological, neuropsychological, neuroscientific, and neuroimage-based expert evidence was presented in support of a not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) defense. No evidence of an independent influence of neuroimagery was found. Overall, neuroscience-based evidence was found to be more persuasive than psychological and anecdotal family history evidence. These effects were consistent across different insanity standards. Despite the non-influence of neuroimagery, however, jurors who were not provided with a neuroimage indicated that they believed neuroimagery would have been the most helpful kind of evidence in their evaluations of the defendant. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.