Neuroscientific Effective on Judge Procedures

The general pattern used in the detection of criminality in modern legal systems is evidence. In order to detect a crime, evidences related to the crime should be evaluated and an assessment should be made within this scope. The most important activity of the criminal proceedings is to reach a conclusion about the criminal dispute. The judge should reach a conclusion by freely evaluating the arguments presented and discussed at the hearing before carrying out the activity of the judgment and reach a conclusion according to his conscientious conviction. Before the verdict is given, the evidence of the trial authority at the hearing is freely appreciated. According to the conscientious opinion, the activity of reaching the result is called the evaluation of the evidence.

In modern legal systems, in the case of the acts which are defined as a crime and in which a punishment is determined how the proceedings will be realized with the commencement of the investigation is determined. The main objective is to reach the material truth about the concrete event and to provide proof of the event in a way that leaves no doubt. Evidence during the prosecution phase is the proof of the concrete event that has occurred and the means of proof necessary for the judgment of the judge. In modern legal systems, the most important aim in the assessment of the crime in a criminal case is to reach the evidence that will prove who or by whom it is done by determining whether the act is a crime according to the laws and to reach the decision in the light of these evidences. For this reason, it is a necessity that the evidence obtained in connection with the act defined as a crime should also have certain features that do not allow for objection.

The evidence used in the determination of the crime must be obtained in accordance with the law. Because the evidence obtained for the person to be tried must be related to the offense committed. For this reason, it is possible to prove this with all kinds of proofs obtained in accordance with the law.

In modern legal systems, the situation considered as the basis for the determination of guilt in a criminal case is a necessary condition for the restoration of the balance which is distorted due to the crime. However, although the principle of freedom of evidence has been adopted, the lawfulness of the evidence must also be checked. The first audit is to check whether the act received is defined as a crime. Secondly, if the incident constitutes a crime, the indictment prepared for submission to the court is the collection of any evidence to prove the concrete event and the control of the lawfulness of such evidence. Thus, the court’s assessment for the trial will be in this direction.

The situation described here reveals another situation as well as the evidence obtained in modern legal systems. There is another issue to consider in this case, which is the neurological status of the offender. This situation will affect the person’s trial and manner. This changes the state of the judiciary in the modern legal system. Because the individual’s neurological status affects the freedom of will and the individual’s ability to act as he wishes. As a result of this situation, a punishment should be made in cases where there is no personal will. In addition, moral assessment should also be taken into account when mentally evaluating a person’s crime. It is difficult to generalize the morally important decisions taken in cases where the (alleged) findings about morally neutral decisions are made deliberately outweighed by the factors that are ultimately deliberately discussed (Davide & Marcel, 2013).

When an assessment is made about the solution of the body-mind problem, various theories need to be taken into consideration. The first of these theories is identity theory. According to this theory, mental states are physical states of the brain. Each mental state is numerically the same as a particular physical state of the brain. However, when an assessment of the concrete event is made, it will not be possible to make a direct assessment of this event, because of the lack of strong mental and physical connection of this theory. When the theory of functionalism, which is another theory is evaluated, the main feature of all kinds of mental states is the daily relationships that it attaches to the environmental effects on the body, other mental states and bodily behavior. This theory is closer to the concrete event, because the administration determines the actions of the person in daily life. The situation that determines and reveals this will of the person arises when the mental process turns into physical action. The struggle of neuroscience is not only for a legal system based on rational institution, but also against all political systems based on the idea of freedom of a rational tool, because considering this situation affects the judicial process significantly (Davide & Marcel, 2013).

The evaluations of free will have taken their place in philosophical considerations. This has influenced the philosophy of law and has taken its place in the field of law. At the psychological level, free will is intertwined with the concept of intent. We have a clear intuition that our conscious intentions are causally effective. It has been the question of how to evaluate when every deliberate action is the inevitable consequence of the previous chain of events which is determined by the physical laws in our brains. However, the question of whether people can freely determine their own behavior and therefore ultimately responsible for their decisions and actions is limited to discussions. One reason why the question of free will has gained momentum is the introduction of new theoretical and empirical insights into the debate by neuroscientific discoveries (Rigoni – Marcel Brass, 2013).

A more detailed assessment of this issue requires an assessment of the future of cognitive neuroscience and punishment. The goal of neuroscience has traditionally been to understand how the nervous system works. Both functionally and structurally, this discipline wants to know how the brain is organized. Recently, he wanted to learn not only how the brain works, but also how it affects our behavior, thoughts and emotions. The attachment of the physical brain to the conceptual mind is what cognitive neuroscience does. It is a mixture of neuroscience and cognitive psychology. The latter deals with knowledge of higher functions such as memory, language and attention. Therefore, the main purpose of cognitive neuroscience is to relate the functioning of the brain to our cognitive abilities and behaviors (Snead, 2010).

These developments in neuroimaging have affected the laws both directly and indirectly. These developments can be seen in the discussions about the speculative applications of emerging technological innovations. Looking directly at the impact, it becomes evident when evidence of neuroimaging is brought to court rooms and leads to the formation of a decree body that shapes the legal area in this area. The arguments presented should be presented accordingly. In this respect, it can be said that physical demonstrations can be much more challenging. What neuroscience does and will continue to accelerate is to determine when, where, and how the mechanical processes that cause behavior are. It is only to deny that human decision-making is purely mechanical when it presents a general, philosophical argument. However, an assessment other than the evidence assessment carried out by modern legal systems needs to be carried out. While you can make detailed predictions about equations that describe the images and functions of brain structures about how these mechanical processes work, keeping your floor is another thing (Snead, 2010).

While an assessment of the existence of will is another way to skepticism is to interpret the reasons. On the one hand, it causes the action itself; on the other hand, it demonstrates conscious actions. It is not an intermediate step in the causal path from conscious brain activity to action in conscious actions, but is actually part of a different causal path. Consciously behaviors do not contribute causally to the onset of action and can make mistakes when thinking about what they are doing. The path to will-skepticism is less metaphysically than before, since it does not require that one subscribe to material dualism, accept the truth of determinism, or take a discordant stance on free will. Being an epiphenomen at the onset of action requires that conscious actions take place, because they reach a different causal path (Pacherie, 2014). When we look at the concrete event, it is necessary to evaluate how much of the action taken within the scope of the will and how much of the action taken outside the will as a result of the brain’s direction.

Neuroscientific studies can elucidate the mechanisms of nerve underlying the characteristics of the people for whom they are responsible for their behavior. This will help us better understand the responsibility of the criminal. It does not support an argument against or blaming any person or class as guilty. Knowing more about a problem can be the first step to solve it, but it can be valuable because it requires knowing more. Likewise, the knowledge provided by memory neuroscience is valuable even before using it to memory disorders or even before improving our memories if neuroscience can help us understand the neural structure of responsible behavior as a crime. Even if we do not use such information to reduce crime or increase justice, it will be worth it. These results will contribute to human knowledge not only for the brain, but also for people who are one of the most socially important events that the brain causes: Crimes that people are responsible for and deserve punishment for. Therefore, it is very important to consider neurobiological evaluations during the evaluation of the offender, but it may not be enough to rely solely on these results (Morse, 2011).

The assessment of criminal responsibility will focus on the neuroimaging, neuropsychology and behavioral genetic role of the offender in the courtroom during the trial and their relationship to criminal responsibility. The general purpose of this is to develop a set of scientific guidelines that will allow the use of neuroscience in the courtroom to be identified as having available scientific support and that their use is yet speculative. There will be an examination of the current uses of neuroimaging in criminal proceedings, and especially the accused claiming that the offense is alleged to have committed a disturbed mental state. Another case is the use of genetics of behavior in the courtroom. Once the legal paradigms and proving standards are clarified, guidelines for clinical evaluation tailored to the symptoms investigated are likely to affect the outcome of the trial (Morse, 2011). For this reason, I think that the evaluation is appropriate. However, with the assumption that responsibility for the offender is given solely on the basis of neurobiological recordings, I think that the assessment will be incomplete and inadequate.

 

 

 

REFERENCES

 

  • Davide R., Marcel B., “From Intentions to Neurons: Social and Neural Consequences of Disbelieving in Free Will”, Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht, 2013.
  • Carter S., “Cognitive Neuroscience and the Future of Punishment”, Governance Studies, 2010.
  • Pacherie, E., “Can Conscious Agency Be Saved?”, 2014.
  • Stephen J. M., “Neuroscience and the Future of Personhood and Responsibility”, University of Pennsylvania Law School, Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository, 2011.

 

Alakalı Yazı

0 Yorumlar

Bir Cevap Yazın