Neuroscience opens up possibilities for a deeper understanding of individual behavior, which makes it highly relevant to criminal law. Neuroscientific methods are no longer unusual in courts around the world; however, despite numerous advances, their use in law remains not entirely reliable. In the legal context, there are relevant technical shortcomings of neuroscientific methods, as well as conceptual obstacles. Additionally, the use of such methods in criminal proceedings raises questions about the infringement of certain rights. The evidentiary nature of neuroscientific evidence is also unclear, and its probative value is questionable. Therefore, courts must carefully consider how and whether to use neuroscientific evidence in a particular case and how much weight to assign to it.
The rapid development of the neuroscientific field also raises questions about the adequacy of protecting individual’s rights and encourages discussions on the potential development of so-called neuro-rights, which would address the protection of the individual mind more appropriately compared to existing relevant rights.
Following the introductory part of the master's thesis, which presents the hypotheses, a theoretical section follows with an overview of neuroscience, its significance for law, and a brief description of the methods it uses. The central part of the thesis is dedicated to reviewing the challenges and difficulties that arise from the use of neuroscience within the legal framework. The final section contains a brief discussion in which the probative value of neuroscientific evidence is assessed and analyzed in light of the presented limitations.
|
