Common criminal defense is the brain blame game as succeeding Richard Hodges arrest for possessing cocaine and residential burglary; he seemed rather startled and consistently entreating questions that had no connection with the plea procedure. At that precise moment the judge asked Hodges to go through a neuropsychological examination and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) testing. Yet there was no asymmetry. Experts came to a decision that Hodges was faking it. His guilty plea would stand.
However, experts recollecting at the 2007 case now say Hodges was a proliferating tendency, Criminal defense strategies are progressively depending on neurological proof: psychological evaluations, behavioral tests or brain scans to potently diminish penance. Accused may reproduce previous head distress or brain disorders as repressed basis for their conduct wishing this will be instrumental into a court’s decisions.
Such weaponry has been engaged for decades mainly in death sanction cases. However, with the evolution of science, the exercise has become inevitable in criminal cases fluctuating from drug misdemeanors to robberies. The number of cases in which people attempt to initiate neurotechnological proof in lawsuit or sentencing phase has increased by leaps and bounds, said Joshua Sanes, director of the Center for Brain Science at Harvard University. But he adds such trials may be exceeding the scientific proof beyond the technology.
According to an analysis by Nita Farahany, a law professor and director of Duke University’s Initiative for Science and Society, in 2012 it over 250 judicial angles exceeding the number in 2007, reproduced accused debating in some form or another that the reason for their actions was their brain.