Wonderful column and I am excited to read what is to come. When looking at your writing there seems to be a clear implication: the current criminal justice system was created by people operating under a series of assumptions that from our point of view are not only naive but hopelessly misguided. Yet, these assumptions carry on influencing sentencing, policing, and how justice is "dealt."
Here again we find evidence from neuroscience that suggests that these memories are less reliable than they ought to be if what we think about the brain is correct.
I suppose one could problematize the neuroscience behind some of these claims. These parts of the brain may be correlated to making images and/or processing them, but recalling them "accurately" may involve other parts. That is, can we, for a minute think of neuroscience as phrenology, and consider that its findings, or at least some of them, be equally problematic? Neuroscience seems so much better --- either way conflicting findings seem to suggest we need to do much more science. How can we take possible misunderstandings or misguided assumptions into account (should we?)?
Thank you as ever for your kind words and thoughtful comments!
I think you are right that the justice system does tend to operate without the most up to date information from Psychology. The wheels of the justice system do grind awfully slow, of course, and by the time Psychology information gets incorporated, it is often out of date. Still, it does happen: Elizabeth Loftus’ work on the misinformation effect, for instance, has certainly informed courtroom discussions of the reliability of eyewitness testimony.
Legal professionals are likely to have a rather different view from either you or me, though. They may well say, yes, the system tends not to respond to the up-to-date input from science, but that’s not a bad thing. It is partly a question of which system is servant and which master. Legal professionals, naturally, tend to think of the legal system as much more important and consequential, and perhaps they are right. It is a very difficult discussion it have, of course, since it would require high-level input from both sides.
I have my reservations about the actual meaning of neuroscience evidence…but maybe that’s a discussion for another time!
Happy new year! I look forward to reading your articles in 2025!
Just fascinating, thank you‼️
No, thank *you*!
No, no, no, indubitably I thank you. lol …just like the bugs bunny cartoon chipmunks
Hi Jason,
Wonderful column and I am excited to read what is to come. When looking at your writing there seems to be a clear implication: the current criminal justice system was created by people operating under a series of assumptions that from our point of view are not only naive but hopelessly misguided. Yet, these assumptions carry on influencing sentencing, policing, and how justice is "dealt."
Here again we find evidence from neuroscience that suggests that these memories are less reliable than they ought to be if what we think about the brain is correct.
I suppose one could problematize the neuroscience behind some of these claims. These parts of the brain may be correlated to making images and/or processing them, but recalling them "accurately" may involve other parts. That is, can we, for a minute think of neuroscience as phrenology, and consider that its findings, or at least some of them, be equally problematic? Neuroscience seems so much better --- either way conflicting findings seem to suggest we need to do much more science. How can we take possible misunderstandings or misguided assumptions into account (should we?)?
Thank you as ever for your kind words and thoughtful comments!
I think you are right that the justice system does tend to operate without the most up to date information from Psychology. The wheels of the justice system do grind awfully slow, of course, and by the time Psychology information gets incorporated, it is often out of date. Still, it does happen: Elizabeth Loftus’ work on the misinformation effect, for instance, has certainly informed courtroom discussions of the reliability of eyewitness testimony.
Legal professionals are likely to have a rather different view from either you or me, though. They may well say, yes, the system tends not to respond to the up-to-date input from science, but that’s not a bad thing. It is partly a question of which system is servant and which master. Legal professionals, naturally, tend to think of the legal system as much more important and consequential, and perhaps they are right. It is a very difficult discussion it have, of course, since it would require high-level input from both sides.
I have my reservations about the actual meaning of neuroscience evidence…but maybe that’s a discussion for another time!
Happy new year! I look forward to reading your articles in 2025!
Hi Jason,
Thank you. I'll look more into Loftus.
That is an interesting question about which should be master and which should follow.