View this document in it's full glory by downloading the pdf here.
Neuropsychologists try to show how behavior is mirrored in brain functions. Forensic neuropsychologists try to show the relationship between brain function and criminal behavior. This field of study is relatively young and research-based as it is still of rather uncertain practical value (yet very promising). However, especially in the U.S., increasing attention has been drawn to the field, mostly regarding its application to insanity defense cases . While neuroimaging may one day help us determine criminal responsibility, the overarching question remains an ethical and philosophical one; Should individuals with brain-based disorders be held responsible for their antisocial behavior? Can we alleviate responsibility for certain disorders? As of now, these questions are philosophical as the neuronal basis of criminal/antisocial conduct has yet to be discovered .
Studies done to date suggest that there might be some connection between impairment found within certain areas of brain and antisocial personality disorder (APD) or psychopathy. Brain damage may also contribute to an inability to control anger or disorganized thought. Even if the meaning of this connection is not yet understood, the results of neuropsychological assessments may still serve as an important factor when determining risk to reoffend and overall functioning. Brain structures/areas commonly associated with APD or psychopathy include :
And, to a lesser extent:
Especially the ventromedial prefrontal and limbic areas have received much attention. It is also worth noting that psychopathy is defined by two factors: antisocial behavior (which is associated with prefrontal areas and problems with inhibition) and lack of emotions (associated with amygdale and the limbic system). Research indicating that psychopaths often do not respond to treatment further strengthens this association between brain dysfunction and psychopathy. Psychopathy is often cited as the single greatest predictor of repeat offending , especially violent offending  and increased knowledge into the biological basis of it could be incredibly informative for psychologists and the legal system.Some of the main brain structures associated with criminal behavior:
Forensic neuropsychology may be useful for determining insanity or when assessing prisoners prior to their release from a prison or jail. From a practical point of view there is no difference between typical neuropsychological testing and testing conducted in forensic settings. Neuropsych testing (in any setting) can help us gain insight into an offender’s basic capacities for language, memory, perception, attention and other cognitive functions.
When applied to forensics, neuropsychological assessment may be useful in determining whether an individual is a developmental or acquired psychopath (as in the famous case of Phineas Gage) which is an important factor in violence risk assessment. Also, prisoners with certain brain impairments (e.g. vmPFC impairment) may require a different approach in therapy due to their unique needs.
Neuropsychological assessment might also be useful in diagnosing diseases that may sometimes result in antisocial, but not always criminal, behavior (e.g., some dementias and brain tumors).
Tools commonly used in forensic neuropsychology are those assessing executive function like the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test or the Trail Making Test.
Forensic neuropsychology is quickly becoming a central area of research in the study of criminal behavior. Understanding the biological roots of antisocial thinking and behavior can give us insight into offender risk and rehabilitation. It also offers us information on early development and prevention of these types of brain abnormalities in childhood. It is important for practitioners and researchers to understand that for some offenders crime may be less of a choice than the legal system would like to believe.
1. Tallis, R (2007). My Brain Made Me Do It: Biology and Freedom at the Battle of Ideas. The Sunday Times Online: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article2726643.ece
2. Perlin, M. L., & McClaln, V. R. (2010). Unasked (and unanswered) questions about the role of neuroimaging in the criminal trial process. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 28(4), 5-22.
3. Raine, A., Yang, Y. (2006). The Neuroanatomical Bases of Psychopathy: A Review of Brain Imaging Findings. [in]: Patrick, Ch. J. (ed.) Handbook of psychopathy. New York: Guiford Press.
4. Hare, R. D. (2003). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist— Revised, 2nd Edition. Toronto, ON, Canada: Multi- Health Systems.
5. Wahlund, K., & Kristiansson, M. (2009). Aggression, psychopathy and brain imaging—Review and future recommendations. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 32(4), 266-271. doi:10.1016/j.ijlp.2009.04.007
6. Harris, T.G., Rice, E. M. (2006). Treatment of Psychopathy: A Review of Empirical Findings. [in]: Patrick, Ch. J. (ed.) Handbook of psychopathy. New York: Guiford Press.
EAPL-S publications are in the public domain and may be reproduced or copied without the permission from the European Association of Psychology and Law Student Society (EAPL-S). EAPL-S encourages you to reproduce them and use them in your efforts to improve awareness of issues in psychology, corrections and law. Citation of the European Association of Psychology and Law as a source is appreciated. However, using these materials inappropriately can raise legal or ethical concerns, so we ask you to use these guidelines: