Close Menu
    Facebook X (Twitter) Instagram
    Return to Fordham Law School
    X (Twitter) Facebook LinkedIn Instagram RSS
    Fordham Law News
    • Home
    • Law School News
    • In the News
    • Fordham Lawyer
    • Insider
      • Announcements
      • Class Notes
      • In Memoriam
    • For the Media
      • Media Contacts
    • News by Topic
      • Business and Financial Law
      • Clinics
      • Intellectual Property and Information Law
      • International and Human Rights Law
      • Legal Ethics and Professional Practice
      • National Security
      • Public Interest and Service
    Return to Fordham Law School
    X (Twitter) Facebook LinkedIn Instagram RSS
    Fordham Law News
    You are at:Home»Centers and Institutes»Fordham Law Launches Neuroscience Center
    Professor Ruben Gur, Justice Elizabeth Bennett, Dean Matthew Diller, Professor Deborah W. Denno, Hon. Jed Rakoff, and Hon. Denny Chin. Photo by Chris Taggart.

    Fordham Law Launches Neuroscience Center

    0
    By on October 7, 2015 Centers and Institutes, Editor's Picks, Faculty, Fordham Lawyer, Law School News, News

    Neuroscience has made enormous strides in recent years, but the science still has a long way to go before it can be fully embraced by the legal community, experts agreed on Oct. 6 at Fordham.

    A panel, Neuroscience and Sentencing, was convened at the Lincoln Center campus to launch the new Neuroscience and Law Center at Fordham Law School.

    Founded by Deborah W. Denno, Arthur A. McGivney Professor of Law, the center aims to be a multi-disciplinary, evidence-based center that explores the ways in which the law is being affected by changing notions about criminal culpability, free will, thought, behavior, and pain.

    The panel featured:

    Justice Elizabeth Bennett, Court of Appeal of British Columbia, Court of Appeal of Yukon, and Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada;

    The Honorable Denny Chin ’78, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit;

    Professor Ruben Gur, Departments of Psychiatry, Radiology, and Neurology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania;

    The Honorable Jed Rakoff, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

    While Bennett delved into theoretical questions for which she said she had no answers, Chin talked about the day-to-day business of law, noting that he had yet to oversee a case that was connected to neuroscience. It will appear in tort cases though, as well as concussion cases involving football and hockey, and right-to-die cases.

    In criminal cases, neuroscience will likely show up in sentencing hearings, he said. He was skeptical of its use in predicting future behavior though, and wondered how it would apply to Megan’s Law, a statue targeting pedophiles.

    “Can one look at a brain image to see whether these individuals have irresistible impulses, and whether there’s a greater likelihood that they will continue to offend? I’m a little troubled by the concept. Maybe some day, but I don’t think we are there,” he said.

    Illuminating some basics of the science, Gur said the term “free will” is not one that neuroscientists use. One can see this when doctors operate on different-functioning areas of the brain in close proximity—for example, an area that stops epileptic seizures that is close to the part of the brain responsible for language.

    “There is a certain region where if I put an electrode and pass some current, patient(s) will start talking. [Then] I put it in another area, and they’ll lift their right hand.

    “If you ask patients ‘Why did you lift your right hand?’ they’ll say, ‘I sort of felt like it all of the sudden.’ We have a strong sense that we are the agents of our behavior.

    “At the same time, the assumption in neuroscience is, ‘If I just triggered the right part of the brain, you’ll be doing whatever I want you to do.’”

    And yet it’s not quite that simple, he said, because interactions among brain parts become a factor in behavior as well, especially if one part is injured or if messages are corrupted.

    “Neuroscience in the courtroom is not just showing a picture and saying ‘Here, this is what caused the patient to behave,’” he said.

    Rakoff recalled Eugenics in the 1920s, lobotomies in the 1940s, and Freudian psychoanalysis in the 1950s as cautionary examples for those who might pounce on neuroscience in the courtroom.

    Even though neuroscience today is far superior to those experiments, it can’t, for example, help determine what to do with someone who is a psychopath, he said.

    “These are dilemmas that neuroscience doesn’t really solve. At the same time, I must say, it forces judges to look a lot harder at the basic principles underlying our legal system,” he said.

    –Patrick Verel

    Share. Facebook Twitter Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr Email

    Related Posts

    Helping Immigrant Families: Meet Christian Veliz ’28

    Fordham Law Alumna Melina Spadone ’95 Does It All

    Protecting Press Freedom: Meet Doris Zhang ’27

    Comments are closed.

    • The Big Idea
    March 31, 2025

    The Big Idea: Local Politics, Reform Prosecutors, and Reshaping Mass Incarceration

    March 3, 2025

    The Big Idea: Forced Labor, Global Supply Chains, and Workers’ Rights

    November 6, 2024

    The Big Idea: Partisanship, Perception, and Prosecutorial Power

    October 3, 2024

    The Big Idea: How a Franchising Model Can Transform Worker Cooperatives

    READ MORE

    About

    Fordham University - The Jesuit University of New York

    Founded in 1841, Fordham is the Jesuit University of New York, offering exceptional education distinguished by the Jesuit tradition to more than 15,100 students in its four undergraduate colleges and its six graduate and professional schools.
    Connect With Fordham
    © 2025 ThemeSphere. Designed by ThemeSphere.

    Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.