Comments on: “And I See Through Your Brain” - Access To Experts, Competency To Consent, And The Impact Of Antipsychotic Medications In Neuroimaging Cases In The Criminal Trial Process http://stlr.stanford.edu/2009/11/and-i-see-through-your-brain/ Fri, 14 Jun 2013 00:18:56 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Saqib Ali http://stlr.stanford.edu/2009/11/and-i-see-through-your-brain/comment-page-1/#comment-5 Saqib Ali Sat, 28 Feb 2009 23:01:53 +0000 http://www.stanford.edu/group/stlr/cgi-bin/wp/?p=11#comment-5 Professor Erin Murphy's response to Professor Perlin talk was excellent. Do listen to the audio when it is available on the website. Professor Erin Murphy’s response to Professor Perlin talk was excellent. Do listen to the audio when it is available on the website.

]]> By: robert weisberg http://stlr.stanford.edu/2009/11/and-i-see-through-your-brain/comment-page-1/#comment-3 robert weisberg Wed, 25 Feb 2009 17:34:50 +0000 http://www.stanford.edu/group/stlr/cgi-bin/wp/?p=11#comment-3 In his fine paper on consent and competency issues in regard to brain-imaging, Prof. Perlin suggests some possible analogies to cases like Schmerber v. California, where various specific procedural rights­4th amendment, 5th amendment, are considered (and then tossed)­in the context of drunk driving. But Prof. Perlin then stresses general due process as the liekly ruliong principle for the brain-imaging issues. I think he’s right to do so, but I think it may be worth playing out some more specific analogies to 4th, 5th, and even 6th amendment doctrines just to illuminate the issue more. Ther are various vserrions of the privleghe against self-incrimination that might be useful. And although this may seem fancful, some of the fourthh amendment issues involving high-tech devices fior procuring private information through the walls (literal and figurative) of zones of privacty may also be interesting to apply. I will do so in my panelist comments. A second point: It’s interesting that the law is somewhat settled for competency issues in terms of psychiatric exams--or at at least the issues are heavily litigated. And Prof. Perlin rightly notes that no such legal analsys has yet emerged for brain-imaging. This is partly because of a historical lag, but it’s still curious that in some ways the well-developed doctrine on the psychiatric interview might suggest that we all have a great deal of faith in the accuracy and reliability of the psychiatric interview. But that is hardly the general view of psychiatry in the courtroom, at least in terms of NGI verdicts, and it would be odd if we avoided the imaging context because the science is too uncertain, ­as if we were confident that the old psychiatry is “certain.” In his fine paper on consent and competency issues in regard to brain-imaging, Prof. Perlin suggests some possible analogies to cases like Schmerber v. California, where various specific procedural rights­4th amendment, 5th amendment, are considered (and then tossed)­in the context of drunk driving. But Prof. Perlin then stresses general due process as the liekly ruliong principle for the brain-imaging issues. I think he’s right to do so, but I think it may be worth playing out some more specific analogies to 4th, 5th, and even 6th amendment doctrines just to illuminate the issue more. Ther are various vserrions of the privleghe against self-incrimination that might be useful. And although this may seem fancful, some of the fourthh amendment issues involving high-tech devices fior procuring private information through the walls (literal and figurative) of zones of privacty may also be interesting to apply. I will do so in my panelist comments.

A second point: It’s interesting that the law is somewhat settled for competency issues in terms of psychiatric exams–or at at least the issues are heavily litigated. And Prof. Perlin rightly notes that no such legal analsys has yet emerged for brain-imaging. This is partly because of a historical lag, but it’s still curious that in some ways the well-developed doctrine on the psychiatric interview might suggest that we all have a great deal of faith in the accuracy and reliability of the psychiatric interview. But that is hardly the general view of psychiatry in the courtroom, at least in terms of NGI verdicts, and it would be odd if we avoided the imaging context because the science is too uncertain, ­as if we were confident that the old psychiatry is “certain.”

]]>