Table 5.
Impact of the neuroscientific evidence in the cases (2008–12).
| Evidence impact | Description | Number of cases |
|---|---|---|
| Factors affecting sentencing | ||
| Reduces moral blame | Statement that the impairments due to brain damage diminish the responsibility of the offender. | 35 |
| Mixed reaction | The acknowledgment that the offender is not at fault for brain damage is paired with concern about increased risk to public safety due to that brain damage. | 25 |
| Hopes or suggestions for treatment and risk reduction | Statements that certain forms of treatment, assessment, or supervision ought to be attempted to meet the risk posed by the offender. | 19 |
| Pessimism about treatment and risk reduction | Suggestions that due to brain damage, prospects for treatment and risk reduction are very poor. | 18 |
| Does not reduce moral blame | Explicit suggestion that the presence of brain damage does not reduce the moral blameworthiness of the offenders’ acts. | 7 |
| Factors affecting determination of guilt (mens rea) | ||
| No responsibility | A small number of cases involved evidence on the point of whether the offender was not criminally responsible due to involuntariness [seizures or dissociative states (‘automatism’)], or mental disorder sufficiently severe to meet the threshold for non-responsibility (Huntington's disease, dementias, tumors, or severe cognitive impairment due to prenatal alcohol exposure or head injury). | 11 |
| Explanation of impairment | One case relied upon the accused's multiple sclerosis and Parkinson's disease in the motor vehicle context to explain that impairment was not due to alcohol intoxication. | 1 |
| Factors affecting fitness determinations | ||
| Fitness to stand trial | A set of cases used the neuroscientific evidence to assess whether the offender met the relatively low threshold of cognitive capacity required to be fit to stand trial. | 10 |
| Factors affecting the admissibility of statements or the validity of guilty pleas | ||
| Operating mind | Statements to police were excluded in some cases because they were not the product of an operating mind or guilty pleas were rejected as insufficiently informed due to the reduced capacity of the offender. | 6 |
| Other | 8 | |
| Totala | 140 | |
aThe number exceeds 133 because the neuroscientific evidence was used for multiple purposes in some cases.