CH33 - Forensic Neuropsychology in the Criminal Court
Socio-legal Perspective
Criminal responsibility refers to both elements of the crime: actus reus and mens rea.
Mens rea: 'guilty mind'; defendant must have the state of mind (recklessness or
intent) sufficient for criminal liability
Actus reus = 'guilty act'; the physical (external/objective) element of the crime.
Doli incapax: before 1998, the rebuttable presumption that those between 10 and 14 years
of age could not be attributed with being able to tell right from wrong. For conviction, the
prosecution was required to prove the mens rea and appreciation of wrongness of the child.
To Exculpate means to show or declare that someone is not guilty of wrongdoing
A plead to insanity is an example of an exculpatory defense
Fitness to plead = the capacity of a defendant in criminal proceedings to comprehend the
course of those proceedings.
A moral agent = a live person who is capable of acting with reference to notions of right and
wrong.
Even if mens rea is established and the suspect offers no defense, he can still be subjected to a
hospital order when a mental disorder is present. Psychiatric medication can even be given in the
absence of consent. Psychosocial treatment however requires some degree of cooperation.
Neuropsychologically, the ability to act responsibly presumes moral agency. For psychopaths this
presumption is problematic, because they are considered 'blind to central moral consideration'.
Children also do not possess moral agency, up until a certain fuzzy border age.
An (neuropsychological) expert witness is not allowed to express an opinion on the ultimate issue in
a trial, i.e. they should not be expressing an opinion on the matters of the court.
Socio-legal position: if a psychiatrist produces a medical report saying that the defendant is insane
and requires hospitalization, the decision maker will typically translate that finding into the terms of
the guilty/not guilty binary (‘the law’s binary code’), rather than engage in determined critique of
the underlying scientific logic.
Neuropsychology has to realize that they put forward certain normative expectations, which
the lawyers aren’t equipped to challenge. Scientific discourse has a certain power of
legitimizing the law's binary code (i.e. wrong/right).
i.e. it is quite some responsibility and power to name certain children and defendants "unfit" to
stand trial or be criminally irresponsible.
A limitation of neuropsychologists' criticisms on legal responsibility is that the channels of
communication through which neuropsychologists and lawyers speak are very different.
While legal discourse is framed according to a guilty/not guilty binary, neuropsychological
discourse reflects a free will/determinism binary.
Law speaks a different language on criminal responsibility. They would reason for example
that youths from age 14 do commit crimes like murders and arsons, and thus giving them
impunity because of their age would leave no man's life or estate safe. While
neuropsychologists would be more inclined to emphasize that adolescents have
underdeveloped brain regions (PFC area) associated with premature moral reasoning.
Application of neuropsychology in the courtroom
The case of Mohammed Sharif, a suspect that was deemed fit to stand trial and suspected of
malingering by a psychologist; while he actually turned out to be suffering of a then-undiscovered
kind of brain atrophy. He served years in prison because of this.
Socio-legal Perspective
Criminal responsibility refers to both elements of the crime: actus reus and mens rea.
Mens rea: 'guilty mind'; defendant must have the state of mind (recklessness or
intent) sufficient for criminal liability
Actus reus = 'guilty act'; the physical (external/objective) element of the crime.
Doli incapax: before 1998, the rebuttable presumption that those between 10 and 14 years
of age could not be attributed with being able to tell right from wrong. For conviction, the
prosecution was required to prove the mens rea and appreciation of wrongness of the child.
To Exculpate means to show or declare that someone is not guilty of wrongdoing
A plead to insanity is an example of an exculpatory defense
Fitness to plead = the capacity of a defendant in criminal proceedings to comprehend the
course of those proceedings.
A moral agent = a live person who is capable of acting with reference to notions of right and
wrong.
Even if mens rea is established and the suspect offers no defense, he can still be subjected to a
hospital order when a mental disorder is present. Psychiatric medication can even be given in the
absence of consent. Psychosocial treatment however requires some degree of cooperation.
Neuropsychologically, the ability to act responsibly presumes moral agency. For psychopaths this
presumption is problematic, because they are considered 'blind to central moral consideration'.
Children also do not possess moral agency, up until a certain fuzzy border age.
An (neuropsychological) expert witness is not allowed to express an opinion on the ultimate issue in
a trial, i.e. they should not be expressing an opinion on the matters of the court.
Socio-legal position: if a psychiatrist produces a medical report saying that the defendant is insane
and requires hospitalization, the decision maker will typically translate that finding into the terms of
the guilty/not guilty binary (‘the law’s binary code’), rather than engage in determined critique of
the underlying scientific logic.
Neuropsychology has to realize that they put forward certain normative expectations, which
the lawyers aren’t equipped to challenge. Scientific discourse has a certain power of
legitimizing the law's binary code (i.e. wrong/right).
i.e. it is quite some responsibility and power to name certain children and defendants "unfit" to
stand trial or be criminally irresponsible.
A limitation of neuropsychologists' criticisms on legal responsibility is that the channels of
communication through which neuropsychologists and lawyers speak are very different.
While legal discourse is framed according to a guilty/not guilty binary, neuropsychological
discourse reflects a free will/determinism binary.
Law speaks a different language on criminal responsibility. They would reason for example
that youths from age 14 do commit crimes like murders and arsons, and thus giving them
impunity because of their age would leave no man's life or estate safe. While
neuropsychologists would be more inclined to emphasize that adolescents have
underdeveloped brain regions (PFC area) associated with premature moral reasoning.
Application of neuropsychology in the courtroom
The case of Mohammed Sharif, a suspect that was deemed fit to stand trial and suspected of
malingering by a psychologist; while he actually turned out to be suffering of a then-undiscovered
kind of brain atrophy. He served years in prison because of this.
