Book club selection (via Nick; session held 28 August 2017).
Title is pretty descriptive of content - author looks initially at the Weinstein case - seemingly aberrant behavior, defendant has a very large tumor, evidence of this is ruled admissible in part. Discussion about (questionable) evidentiary value of the neuroscience, and the cottage industry that has grown up involving expert witnesses and defense lawyers.
What to do if the judge or jury is convinced that the defendant cannot control his/her behavior because of brain issues? Much of this is playing out in a binary setting (guilty or not) that doesn't accommodate nuance.
Author pursues perhaps too many major threads here - juveniles, veterans, NFL players, etc. The purpose of sentencing - rehabilitation, deterrence, etc.
At book's end, author provides what seems a useful summary - very cautionary about probative value, he concludes we know something but not enough. So continued reliance on normal evidence seems wise!
More generally - this brings to mind the problematic invocation of "science" to support desired judicial outcomes, broad policy preferences, etc. - this problem seems worse than ever.
The book triggered more discussion than usual, which is good.
No comments:
Post a Comment