Can Brain Mapping and Cognitive Mapping Determine Guilt? A Study on Neuro Evidences on Trail

With the advent of neuroscience into the courtroom, legal systems are forced to ask an important question; can brain scans as well as cognitive mapping be used as guilt indicators? This paper describes the overlap between law, neuroscience, and ethics and looks into the admissibility, reliability, and implication of neuro-evidence to clarify criminal responsibility. Other technologies, such as Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI), Electroencephalography (EEG), and The Brain Electrical Oscillation Signatures (BEOS), purport to discover deception, the memory recall, or psychological inclination - but their interpretation is admittedly a tight rope of scientific insight and speculative deduction.
The paper analyses the reception of neuro-evidence in the various jurisdictions using an interdisciplinary approach including legal analysis, neuroscientific analysis, and comparative case analysis in different jurisdiction (United States, United Kingdom, and India). It questions the compatibility of such evidence with key principles of criminal adjudication such as mens rea and autonomy, or whether such evidence poses the threat of instilling neuro-prejudice as well as serving to undermine the presumption of innocence.
Although neuro-evidence is promising in the explanation of diminished responsibility or impulse disorders, this paper proposes that guilt cannot or should not be mechanistically deduced using brain data. The law should uphold its normative value of human agency, where neuroscience supports justice and does not substitute it.
Keywords: Normative Value, Neuro-Prejudice, Impulse disorders, Interpretation.