Abstract
Neuroscience have been on the scene for some time now, alongside the more traditional investigation methods and tools. The most important contribution neuroscience has offered so far is in the field of insanity; it is also used for the reconstruction of the facts and, in particular, for the verification of the reliability of the declarations made by witnesses and defendants during the trial. An updated version of the lie detector is represented by the IAT, a tool designed to decipher the lies through a careful analysis of the reaction times of the examined subject. The problem remains—on which there are divergent opinions—of the compatibility of this type of techniques with the freedom of self-determination and, more generally, regarding the rights of the person.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
Ex multis, see Bargis (2011), p. 47; Capraro (2012), p. 95 et seq.; Caprioli (2008), p. 3520 et seq.; Di Giovine (2011), p. 837 et seq.; Dominioni (2005), p. 11 et seq; Scalfati (2011), p. 149 et seq. More recently, see Carlizzi (2018), and also the Volume Carlizzi and Tuzet (2018). For a specific application of neuroscience to criminology and risk assessment see Zara (2013), Zara and Farrington (2016), Chapter 4, p. 148 et seq. See also Zara and Gino (2018) for the application of specialized assessment of risk in particular forms of violence such as IPV (Intimate Partner Violence).
- 2.
Bentham (1827).
- 3.
Naturally, it is possible that one day the progress of artificial intelligence will be to realize the dream of deducing historical truth from science, with the result of replacing the evaluations and the inferences of judges to computers; but it is equally evident that the contradictory and the figure of the defence lawyer would then also be set.
- 4.
Concerning the prejudices that sometimes fuel hostility towards neuroscience, see, e.g. Di Giovine (2011), pp. 837 et seq., pp. 842 et seq., whereby jurists base ‘doctrinal coldness’ on the unconfessed fear that neurosciences can provide evidence in the near future to expropriate the judge in the assessment of the trial definitively, by handing it all over to the expert, thus leading to the point of zenith that a progressive review of the legal game that the entrance of scientific evidence has long been determined within the penal process and reinforcing the risk of a different and surreptitious return to the system of forensic evidence.
- 5.
Cf. Pizzetti (2012).
- 6.
Cf. critical thinking with respect to the use of the art. 189 c.p.p. to introduce in the crimal trial the c.d. ‘scientific evidence’ Bozio (2013), pp. 66 et seq.
- 7.
Concerning the risks connected with the compulsory execution of neuroscientific examinations, Tonini and Conti (2012), p. 184.
- 8.
- 9.
Cordero (2012), p. 243.
- 10.
Court of Appeal of Trieste September 18, 2009, see Forza (2010); Court of Como May 20, 2011, see Terracina (2012). For the analysis of both court cases and for the framework of the opposing attitudes of the jurists with respect to the entry of neuroscience into the criminal trial, See Musumeci (2012), p. 119.
- 11.
Regarding the relationships between neuroscience and freedom of will see Di Giovine (2011), pp. 840 et seq., whereby neurosciences do not modify the traditional conceptual categories based on insanity.
- 12.
See Garapon (2012), p. 91, the possibility of judging the mentally ill had already been suggested in the 1960s by Thomas Stephen Szasz, one of the fathers of antipsychiatry, who saw an emancipation from the control over the interiority imposed by asylums: abolition of non-imputability, meant all accused of the crime should have been judged.
- 13.
Garapon (2012), pp. 90 et seq.
- 14.
Cf. point 7 of the Guidelines drawn up during the Seminar on “The Scientific Evidence within Criminal Trials” promoted by the International Institute of Criminal Sciences (ISISC) on 15 June 2008 (“In order to preserve the autonomy of the judges’ assessment, questions need to be formulated in ways that do not imply definitions or legal qualifications whose knowledge must be reserved for the judge”).
- 15.
See Capraro (2012), p. 101.
- 16.
Cf. Garapon (2012), p. 86.
- 17.
The Court of Cremona (July 19, 2011) ordered an examination with the IAT and TARA methodologies on the autobiographical memory of the victim, as an integrative investigation.
- 18.
- 19.
A primal and amusing version of IAT is described by the philosopher Bertrand Russell: “As everyone knows, the association offers a method to trap criminals. You are questioning, let’s say, a man you suspect slit his wife’s throat with a knife. You say a word, and he must answer with the first word that comes to mind. You say “cat” and he answers “dog”; you say “politician” and he says “thief”; you say ‘knife’ and he has a first impulse to say ‘throat’, but he knows it’s better not to say it, so, after a long hesitation he says ‘fork’. The duration of the hesitation demonstrates his resistance”, (1969), p. 139 et seq.
- 20.
Gennari (2018), p. 10 et seq.
- 21.
Capraro (2012), p. 101.
- 22.
- 23.
Ricci (1999), pp. 543 et seq.
- 24.
References
Bargis M (2011) Note in tema di prova scientifica nel processo penale. Riv dir process 66(1):47–66
Bentham J (1827) Rationale of judicial evidence. Hunt and Clarke, London
Bozio V (2013) La prova atipica. In: Ferrua P, Marzaduri E, Spangher G (eds) La prova penale. Giappichelli, Turin, pp 57–86
Capraro L (2012) Primi casi clinici in tema di prova neuroscientifica. Processo penale e giustizia 3:95–103
Caprioli F (2008) La scienza ‘cattiva maestra’: le insidie della prova scientifica nel processo penale. Cass pen 48:3520–3528
Carlizzi G (2018) La valutazione della prova scientifica. Giuffrè, Milan
Carlizzi G, Tuzet G (2018) La prova scientifica nel processo penale. Giappichelli, Turin
Conti C (2011) Accertamenti medici sulla persona e diritti fondamentali: il legislatore di fronte all’oceano. In: Conti C (ed) Scienza e processo penale. Nuove frontiere e vecchi pregiudizi. Giuffrè, Milan, pp 119–143
Cordero F (2012) Procedura penale, 9th edn. Giuffrè, Milan
Di Chiara G (2007) Il canto delle sirene: Processo penale e modernità scientifico-tecnologica: prova dichiarativa e diagnostica della verità. Criminalia:19–39
Di Giovine O (2011) Chi ha paura delle neuroscienze? Archivio penale 3:837–854
Dominioni O (2005) La prova penale scientifica. Giuffrè, Milan
Ferrua P (2011) Prove. In: Ferrua P, Lavarini B (eds) Diritto processuale penale. Appunti per gli studenti di psicologia. Giappichelli, Turin, pp 67–83
Ferrua P (2017) La prova nel processo penale, Struttura e procedimento, vol I. Giappichelli, Turin
Forza A (2010) Le neuroscienze entrano nel processo penale. Riv pen:75–79
Gabrielli C (2009) Accertamenti medici dai confini troppo incerti. Guida al diritto 30:71–73
Garapon A (2012) Lo Stato minimo. Raffaello Cortina, Milan
Gennari G (2018) La macchina della verità si è fermata a Salerno…fortunatamente. Diritto penale contemporaneo 12:5–14
Grevi V (2018) Prove. In: Conso G, Grevi V, Bargis M (eds) Compendio di procedura penale, 6th edn. Cedam, Padua, pp 301–384
Grifantini F (2015) sub art. 188. In: Conso G, Grevi V (eds) Commentario breve al codice di procedura penale. Cedam, Padova, pp 676–680
Musumeci E (2012) Cesare Lombroso e le neuroscienze: un parricidio mancato. Franco Angeli, Milan
Pizzetti FG (2012) Neuroscienze forensi e diritti fondamentali. Spunti Costituzionali. Giappichelli, Turin
Ricci GF (1999) Le prove atipiche. Giuffrè, Milan
Russell B (1969) Storia delle idee nel XIX secolo. Mondadori, Milan
Scalfati A (2011) La deriva scientista dell’accertamento penale. Processo penale e giustizia 5:144–150
Stracciari A, Bianchi A, Sartori G (2010) Neuropsicologia forense. Il Mulino, Bologna
Terracina D (2012) Neuroscienze: lo studio della morfologia del cervello determinante nello stabilire il vizio parziale di mente. Guida al diritto 5:63
Tonini P (2012) Manuale di procedura penale. Giuffrè, Milan
Tonini P, Conti C (2012) Il diritto delle prove penali. Giuffrè, Milan
Zara G (2013) Neurocriminologia e giustizia penale. Cassaz Penal 2:822–840
Zara G, Farrington DP (2016) Criminal recidivism: explanation, prediction and prevention. Routledge, Abingdon
Zara G, Gino S (2018) Intimate partner violence and its escalation into femicide. Frailty thy name is ‘violence against women’. Front Psychol 9(1777):1–11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01777
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Ferrua, P. (2020). Neuroscientific Evidence and Criminal Trials. In: D’Aloia, A., Errigo, M.C. (eds) Neuroscience and Law. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38840-9_19
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38840-9_19
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-38839-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-38840-9
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)