Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T03:25:08.401Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Limitations Using Neuroimaging to Reconstruct Mental State After a Crime

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 October 2021

Michael J. Vitacco ,
Alynda M. Randolph ,
Rebecca J. Nelson Aguiar  and
Megan L. Porter Staats
Michael J. Vitacco*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry and Health Behavior, Augusta University, Augusta, GA, USA
Alynda M. Randolph
Affiliation:
Forensic Outpatient Program, JBS Mental Health Authority, Birmingham, AL, USA
Rebecca J. Nelson Aguiar
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry and Health Behavior, Augusta University, Augusta, GA, USA
Megan L. Porter Staats
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry and Health Behavior, Augusta University, Augusta, GA, USA
*
*Corresponding author. Email: MVITACCO@augusta.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Neuroimaging offers great potential to clinicians and researchers for a host of mental and physical conditions. The use of imaging has been trumpeted for forensic psychiatric and psychological evaluations to allow greater insight into the relationship between the brain and behavior. The results of imaging certainly can be used to inform clinical diagnoses; however, there continue to be limitations in using neuroimaging for insanity cases due to limited scientific backing for how neuroimaging can inform retrospective evaluations of mental state. In making this case, this paper reviews the history of the insanity defense and explains how the use of neuroimaging is not an effective way of improving the reliability of insanity defense evaluations.

Keywords

neuroimagingforensic psychiatric and psychological evaluationsbrain and behaviorclinical diagnosesinsanity defense
Type
Articles
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 30 , Issue 4 , October 2021 , pp. 694 - 701
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Vitacco, MJ, Malesky, LA Jr., Erickson, SK, Leslie, W, Croysdale, A, Bloechl, A. Measuring attitudes toward the insanity defense in venirepersons: Refining the IDA-R in the evaluation of juror bias. The International Journal of Forensic Mental Health 2009;8(1):62–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2. Gowensmith, WN, Murrie, DC, Boccaccini, MT. How reliable are forensic evaluations of legal sanity? Law and Human Behavior 2013;37:98–106.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

3. Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics, Rackham H, trans. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. (Original work published 350 B.C.E.); available at http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0054%3Abekker+page%3D1111a (last accessed 1 Mar 2021).

4. Plato. Laws: Book IX, Jowett B, trans. The Internet Classics Archive, 1892; available at http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/laws.9.ix.html (last accessed 1 Mar 2021). (Original work published 360 B.C.E).

5. Plat, A. The origins and development of the “Wild Beast” concept of mental illness and its relation to theories of criminal responsibility. Issues in Criminology 1965;1:1–18.Google Scholar

6. Rex. v. Arnold, 16 Howell’s State Trials 684, 764 (1723).

7. Blackstone W. Commentaries on the Laws of England. 9th ed. London: W; 1783.

8. Rex v. M’Naghten, 8 E.R. 718, 1843.

9. American Law Institute. Model penal code: Official draft and explanatory notes: complete text of Model penal code as adopted at the 1962 Annual Meeting of the American Law Institute at Washington, D.C., May 24, 1962. Philadelphia, PA: The Institute; 1962.

10. Parsons v. State, So. 2d 854 (Ala. 1887).

11. Kahler v. Kansas, No. 18–6135, 589 U.S. ___ (2020).

12. Morse, SJ, Hoffman, MB. The uneasy entente between legal insanity and mens rea: Beyond Clark v. Arizona. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 2008;97(4):1071–84.Google Scholar

13. Melton, GB, Petrila, J, Poythress, NG, Slobogin, C, Otto, RK, Mossman, D, Condie, LO. Psychological Evaluations for the Courts: A Handbook for Mental Health Professionals and Lawyers . 4th ed. New York: Guilford Press; 2018.Google Scholar

14. Packer, IK. Evaluation of Criminal Responsibility . Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

15. Faust, D, Ahern, DC. Clinical judgment and prediction. In Faust D, ed. Coping with Psychiatric and Psychological Testimony: Based on the Original Work by Jay Ziskin . Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2012, at 147–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

16. See note 15, Faust, Ahern 2012, at 147–2018.

17. See note 13, Melton et al. 2018.

18. Murrie, DC, Warren, JI. Clinician variation in rates of legal sanity options: Implications for self-monitoring. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 2005;36:519–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

19. See note 14, Packer 2009.

20. See note 15, Faust, Ahern 2012, at 147–2018.

21. Neal, T, Grisso, T. The cognitive underpinnings of bias in forensic mental health evaluations. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 2014;20:200–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

22. Nickerson, RS. Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology 1998;2:175–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

23. See note 21, Neal, Grisso 2014, at 200–211.

24. Murrie, DC, Boccaccini, MT, Guarnera, LA, Rufino, K. Are forensic experts biased by the side that retained them? Psychological Science 2013;24:1889–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

25. Philip, MR, Wolf, AS, Coons, DJ Psychiatry and the criminal justice system: Testing the myths. American Journal of Psychiatry 1988;145(5):605–10.Google Scholar

26. Fukunaga, KK, Pasewark, RA, Hawkins, M, Gudeman, H. Insanity plea: Inter-examiner agreement and concordance of psychiatric opinion and court verdict. Law and Human Behavior 1981;5:325–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

27. See note 2, Gowensmith et al. 2013, at 98–106.

28. Gowensmith, WN, Murrie, DC, Boccaccini, MT. Field reliability of competency to stand trial evaluations: How often do evaluators agree, and what do judges decide when evaluators disagree? Law and Human Behavior 2012;36:130–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

29. Gowensmith WN, Murrie DC, Boccaccini MT. Evaluator agreement in assessing risk and need for hospitalization. In Murrie DC (Chair), Field reliability and field validity of forensic assessment techniques. Symposium presented at the meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society (2011, March): Miami, FL.

30. Scarpazza, C, Zampieri, I, Miolla, A, Melis, G, Pietrini, P, Sartori, G. A multidisciplinary approach to insanity assessment as a way to reduce cognitive biases. Forensic Science International 2021;319:1–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

31. Meynen, G. Neuorscience-based psychiatric assessments of criminal responsibility: Beyond self-report? Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 2020;29(3):446–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

32. Schweitzer, N, Saks, M. Neuroimage evidence and the insanity defense. Behavioral Sciences and the Law 2011;29:592–607.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

33. Kulynych, J. Psychiatric neuroimaging evidence: A high-tech crystal ball? Stanford Law Review 1997;49:1249–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

34. See note 20, Scarpazza et al. 2021, at 1–9.

35. Satel, S, Lilienfeld, SO. Brainwashed: The Seductive Appeal of Mindless Neuroscience . New York: Basic Books; 2013.Google Scholar

36. Denno, DW. How prosecutors and defense attorneys differ in their use of neuroscience evidence. Fordham Law Review 2016;85:453–79.Google Scholar

37. Denno, DW. The myth of the double-edged sword: An empirical study of neuroscience in criminal cases. Boston College Law Review 2015;56:493–551.Google Scholar

38. Allen, CH, Vold, K, Felsen, G, Blumenthal-Barby, JS, Aharoni, E. Reconciling the opposing effects of neurobiological evidence on criminal sentencing judgments. PLOS One 2019;14(1):0210584.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

39. Hardcastle, VG, Lamb, E. What difference do brain images make in US criminal trials? Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 2018;24(4):909–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

40. Lyon, L. Dead salmon and voodoo correlations: Should we be skeptical about functional MRI? Brain 2017;140 e53:1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

41. Weinberger, DR, Radulescu, E. Structural magnetic resonance imaging all over again. JAMA Psychiatry , 2021;78(1):E1–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

42. United States v. Lisa Montgomery, No. 08-1780 (8th Cir. 2011).

43. See note 37, Denno 2015, at 493–551.

44. The State of South Carolina v. Stephen Christopher Stanko Appellant. No. 26442 (SC Supreme Ct, 2008).

45. Porter, S, Woodworth, M, Earle, J, Drugge, J, Boer, D. Characteristics o sexual homicides committed by psychopathic and nonpsychopathic offenders. Law and Human Behavior 2003;27(5):459–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

46. Miller G. fMRI Evidence used in murder sentencing. Science Magazine; 2009 Nov 23; available at https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2009/11/fmri-evidence-used-murder-sentencing (last accessed 1 Mar 2021).

47. See note 46, Miller 2009.

48. Erickson, SK. Blaming the brain. Minnesota Law Review of Science and Technology 2010;11:27–76.Google Scholar

49. Vitacco, MJ, Gottfried, E, Lilienfeld, SO, Batastini, A. The limited relevance of neuroimaging in insanity evaluations. Neuroethics 2020;13(3):249–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

50. Lilienfeld, SO, Aslinger, E, Marshall, J, Satel, S. Neurohype: A field guide to exaggerated brain-based claims. In:LSM, Johnson, Rommelfanger, KS, eds. The Routledge Handbook of Neuroethics . London: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group; 2018, at 241–61.Google Scholar