Authors : Heena Singla; Dr. Rukmani Radhaswami; Dr. Asha Srivastava

Volume/Issue : Volume 11 - 2026, Issue 3 - March

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/33ndped3

Scribd : https://tinyurl.com/4n85r5bh

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/26mar825

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.

Abstract : Neuroscientific evidence, encompassing any information related to the brain, holds the potential to function similarly to other forms of evidence in establishing or challenging claims within criminal cases. Its application extends to various scenarios, such as bolstering or questioning expert testimonies, corroborating or refuting medical diagnoses, substantiating a defendant's account of their mental state during the crime, demonstrating the causal link between a defendant's actions and significant harm, or even aiding the judge or jury in comprehending different types of evidence. In essence, neuroscientific evidence can be employed in a wide range of ways to support, question, or provide clarity in criminal proceedings. Various research has proposed that brain scans might hold the answer to detecting criminal intentions.

Keywords : Neurosciences, Criminal, Evidence, Brain, Nervous System.

References :

1. Cowan, W.M.; Harter, D.H.; Kandel, E.R. (2000). "The emergence of modern neuroscience: Some implications for neurology and psychiatry". Annual Review of Neuroscience. 23: 345–346.
2. Compton (n 5) 540. See also OC Snead, ‘Neuoimaging and the “Complexity” of Capital Punishment’ (2007) N.Y.U.L. Rev 265.
3. Dadds and Salmon 2003 Punishment insensitivity and parenting: temperament and learning as interacting risks for antisocial behaviour. Clinical Child and family Psychology Review. 6, 69–86.
4. JM Burns and RH Swerdlow, ‘Right Orbitofrontal Tumor with Pedophilia Symptom and Constructional Apraxia Sign’ (2003) Archives Neurology 437, 440 as quoted in U Moaz and G Yaffe, ‘What Does recent neuroscience tell us about criminal responsibility’ (2015) Journal of Law and Biosciences 121.
5.  Klaming and Koops (n 5) 231
6. 1MS Gazzaniga, ‘What is Cognitive Neuroscience’ in AS Mansfield (ed), A Judge’s Guide to Neuroscience: A Concise Introduction (2010) 2 as quoted in Bennett (n 5) 441
7. Perr, I. N. (1958). Epilepsy and the law. Clev. -Marshall Law review, 7(2), 280–301.
8. Redding (n 5) 57. See also Klaming and Koops (n 5) 233; A Raine, M Buchsbaum and L Lacasse, ‘Brain Abnormalities in Murderers Indicated by Position Emission Tomography’ (1997) 42 biological psychiatry 495–508
9. Shen, F. X. (2016). The overlooked history of neurolaw. Fordham Law Review, 85(2), 667–695.
10.  Sinnott –Armstrong Walter & Nadel Lynn (eds) 2011 Conscious Will and Responsibility. Oxford University Press.