SIGNATURE WORK
CONFERENCE & EXHIBITION 2022

Neuro-scientific evidence used in expert testimony for insanity defense has received increasing attention as neuroscience made prominent advances in recent decades such as fMRI. This research addresses legal system-related issues that the insanity defense engages with, which exempts from criminal responsibility and culpability of people with severe mental disease or disability which impairs their cognitive abilities or volitional abilities to form criminal intent. By analyzing how neuroscientific evidence is currently used in criminal proceeding procedures in the U.S. and Chinese legal systems from the 1980s to now, it investigates special types of criminal cases and tries to amend current procedural loopholes across different legal systems. With a discussion on the philosophical basis of criminal liability and an in-depth examination of the criminal cases cross-culturally, this paper compares the legal institutional differences with the aim of promoting the development of a more open and transparent legal system. This comparative study sheds light on how neuroscientific evidence is should be interpreted and applied in different legal contexts in the future. It provides some suggestions to normalize the use of neuroscientific evidence with the aim of trying to avoid its harmful influence in courtrooms on both liability and sentencing decisions. With a positive outlook on the development of neuroscience and future legal reform, I think current institutional loopholes concerning its intersection with criminal law could be amended.