This paper argues against the use of predictive cognitive neuroscience research in judicial processes. Barcus argues that, because predictive models do not adequately address the “whys” of behavior and are better suited to macro-scale processes rather than individual-level predictions, they can only provide “a crude idea of future behavior” at best and will be bias-laden and inaccurate at worst. Meanwhile, neuroscience brain imaging is a newly-developing field and relies on small-scale studies, a combination that creates little replicability and presents deeply-flawed outcomes when this research is used as a basis for criminal prosecution. Barcus concludes that this scholarship, while holding great potential for the future, “cannot have a place in establishing guilt…. the complexity of an individual cannot be captured by a predictive model.”
↧