Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T23:32:45.155Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Lady Justice may be Blind, but is She Racist? Examining Brains, Biases, and Behaviors Using Neuro-Voir Dire

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 October 2021

Zaev D. Suskin
Zaev D. Suskin*
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Oklahoma, Tulsa, OK, USA Georgetown University Pellegrino Center for Clinical Bioethics, Washington, DC, USA Harvard Medical School Center for Bioethics, New Haven, CT, USA
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper discusses the possible use of functional magnetic-resonance imaging as potentially useful in jury selection. The author suggests that neuro-voir could provide greater impartiality of trials than the standard voir, while also preserving existing privacy protections for jurors. He predicts that ability to image and understand a wide range of brain activities, most notably bias-apprehension and lie detection, will render neuro-voir dire invaluable. However currently, such neuro-solutions remain preliminary.

Keywords

fMRIneuroimagingjury selectionjury biasneuro-voir dire
Type
Articles
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 30 , Issue 4 , October 2021 , pp. 702 - 709
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Lee, H. To Kill a Mockingbird . New York: Harper Perennial Modern Classics; 1988, at 224.Google Scholar

2. Grisham, J. The Runaway Jury. New York, NY: Doubleday Books; 1996.Google Scholar

3. See note 1, Lee 1988.

4. Lumet, S, Reginald, R. Twelve Angry Men [DVD]. Los Angeles: Orion-Nova; 1957.Google Scholar

5. Fox, D. Neuro-voir dire and the architecture of bias. Hastings Law Journal 2014;65:999–1042.Google Scholar

6. Ward, J. The Student’s Guide to Cognitive Neuroscience. 2nd ed. New York: Psychology Press; 2010.Google Scholar

7. Farahany, NA. Neuroscience and behavioral genetics in US criminal law: An empirical analysis. Journal of Law and Biosciences 2015;2(3):485–509.Google ScholarPubMed

8. Greely, HT. Law and the revolution in neuroscience: An early look at the field. Akron Law Review 2009;42(3):687–715.Google Scholar

9. See note 5, Fox 2014, at 999–1042.

10. U.S. Constitution Amendment VI.

11. See note 2, Grisham 1996.

12. Reiner, R. The Princess Bride [DVD]. Santa Monica, CA: MGM Home Entertainment; 2000.Google Scholar

13. Hoffman, MB. Peremptory challenges should be abolished: A trial judge’s perspective. University of Chicago Law Review 1997;64(3):809–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14. Rachlinski, JJ, Johnson, SL. Does unconscious racial bias affect trial judges? Notre Dame Law Review 2009;84(3):1195–1246.Google Scholar

15. Kang, J, Bennett, JM, Carbado, D, Casey, P, Dasgupta, N, Faigman, D, et al. Implicit bias in the courtroom. University of California Los Angeles Law Review 2012;59(5):1124–86.Google Scholar

16. Seltzer, R, Venuti, MA, Lopes, GM. Juror honesty during the voir dire. Journal of Criminal Justice 1991;19(5):251–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

17. See note 5, Fox 2014, at 999–1042.

18. See note 13, Hoffman 1997, at 809–63.

19. See note 15, Kang et al. 2012, at 1124–86.

20. Phelps, EA, O’Connor, KJ, Cunningham, WA, Funayama, ES, Gatenby, JC, Gore, JC, et al. Performance on indirect measures of race evaluation predicts amygdala activation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2000;12(5):729–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

21. See note 5, Fox 2014, at 999–1042.

22. Korn, HA, Johnson, MA, Chun, MM. Neurolaw: Differential brain activity for black and white faces predicts damage awards in hypothetical employment discrimination cases. Social Neuroscience 2012;7(2012):398–409.Greely, HT, Illes, J. Neuroscience-based lie detection: The urgent need for regulation. American Journal of Law and Medicine 2007;33(3):377–431.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

23. See note 22, Korn et al. 2012, at 398–409.

24. Greely, HT, Illes, J. Neuroscience-based lie detection: The urgent need for regulation. American Journal of Law and Medicine 2007; 33(3):377–431 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

25. Farahany, NA. Incriminating thoughts. Stanford Law Review 2012;(64):351–408; Stan. L. Rev. 351 (201nd Medicine. Gatenby JC, Gore JC, 6)Shen, FX. Neuroscience, mental privacy, and the law. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 2013;36(2):653–713.Google Scholar

26. Rodriguez-Moreno, D, Hirsch, J. The dynamics of deductive reasoning: An fMRI investigation. Neuropsychologia 2009;47(4):949–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

27. See note 8, Greely 2009, at 687–715.

28. United States v. Semrau, 693 F.3d 510 (6th Circuit Court of Appeals 2010).

29. Wilson v. Corestaff Services, L.P., 28 Misc. 3d 425, 900 N.Y.S.2d 639 (New York Supreme Court 2010).

30. See note 5, Fox 2014, at 999–1042.

31. Rodriguez-Moreno, D, Hirsch, J. The dynamics of deductive reasoning: An fMRI investigation. Neuropsychologia 2009;47(4):949–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

32. Culham, JC, Cavanagh, P, Kanwisher, NG. Attention response functions: Characterizing brain areas using fMRI activation during parametric variations of attentional load. Neuron 2001;32(4):737–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

33. See note 5, Fox 2014, at 999–1042.

34. Hayes v. Missouri, 120 U.S. 68, 70 (1887).

35. See note 5, Fox 2014, at 999–1042.

36. State v. Briggs, 776 P.2d 1347, 1355 (Washington Court of Appeals 1989).

37. 28 U.S.C.§1862.

38. Peters v. Kiff, 407 U.S. 493, 503–04 (1972).

39. Federal Regulations of Evidence. 606(b).

40. McDonald v. Pless, 238 U. S. 264 (1915).

41. Tanner v. United States, 483 U. S. 107 (1987).

42. Warger v. Shauers, 574 U. S. ___ (2014).

43. U.S. Constitution Amendment VI.

44. Amar AR. Choosing representatives by lottery voting. Yale Law Journal 1984;53(9):1689–1699.

45. Peña-Rodriguez v. Colorado, 580 U.S. ___ (2017).

46. Peña-Rodriguez v. Colorado, 580 U.S. ___ (2017).

47. Liptik, A. Jury secrecy does not apply if bias taints deliberations, justices rule. The New York Times; 2017 Mar 6; 017 Mar 6.___ (2017). (ent VItonorkcy Gatenby JC, Gore JC, 8).

48. Peña-Rodriguez v. Colorado, 580 U.S. ___ (2017).

49. Alito S., dissenting. Peña-Rodriguez v. Colorado, 580 U.S. ___ (2017).

50. Peña-Rodriguez v. Colorado, 580 U.S. ___ (2017).

51. Patterson v. Colorado, 205 U.S. 454, 462 (1907).

52. See note 5, Fox 2014, at 999–1042.

53. Peña-Rodriguez v. Colorado, 580 U.S. ___ (2017).

54. Peña-Rodriguez v. Colorado, 580 U.S. ___ (2017).

55. See note 8, Greely 2009, at 687–715.

56. U.S. Constitution Amendment I.

57. U.S. Constitution Amendment V.

58. Press-Enter. Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501, 511 (1984).

59. See note 26, Shen 2013, at 653–713.

60. See note 5, Fox 2014, at 999–1042.

61. See note 5, Fox 2014, at 999–1042.