本文選題：神經(jīng)科學(xué)證據(jù)　切入點(diǎn)：功能磁共振成像　出處：《中國(guó)科學(xué)技術(shù)大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：科技的發(fā)展總是會(huì)給法律帶來一些新的機(jī)遇與挑戰(zhàn),而20世紀(jì)90年代神經(jīng)科學(xué)的突破性發(fā)展給法律帶來的不僅僅是需要規(guī)制的部分,還給法律提供了一個(gè)新的視角來研究人的行為與社會(huì)之間的關(guān)系。從而,一門新的學(xué)科誕生了,這就是神經(jīng)法學(xué)(Neurolaw).這一門交叉學(xué)科的內(nèi)涵與外延極其廣泛,但實(shí)際運(yùn)用最廣的是基于神經(jīng)科學(xué)技術(shù)獲得的證據(jù)(神經(jīng)科學(xué)證據(jù))在庭上的使用問題。本文通過案例研究分析,探討了神經(jīng)科學(xué)技術(shù)在法律實(shí)踐中的運(yùn)用——總結(jié)現(xiàn)有的成就外,也總結(jié)了該技術(shù)的不足,希望在將來神經(jīng)科學(xué)技術(shù)可以為人們提供更客觀的測(cè)量工具,可以為傳統(tǒng)法學(xué)提供理論支持和技術(shù)幫助。也希望從法律角度建立更加完善的程序設(shè)計(jì),以保證神經(jīng)科學(xué)證據(jù)合理正確的使用。 本文中介紹的一項(xiàng)重要的神經(jīng)科學(xué)技術(shù)——]EMRI功能磁共振成像技術(shù)是神經(jīng)科學(xué)證據(jù)的核心,該技術(shù)對(duì)于人類大腦功能的窺探打開了人類思想和行為的黑箱。以證據(jù)學(xué)為中心,對(duì)測(cè)謊；記憶還原；吸毒、青少年以及精神病者犯罪的鑒定等等都可以提供檢測(cè)數(shù)據(jù),這種科學(xué)證據(jù)在法庭上的運(yùn)用已經(jīng)存在,但是法律還沒有跟上技術(shù)發(fā)展的步伐。如何正確的利用科技,制定合適的規(guī)制條款,首先要認(rèn)清fMRI功能磁共振成像技術(shù)的不足和不適合運(yùn)用于法律的部分,本文通過對(duì)fMRI技術(shù)在美國(guó)的使用情況,以及該技術(shù)本身的理論出發(fā),總結(jié)了該技術(shù)應(yīng)用在法律訴訟實(shí)踐中,可能面臨的法律障礙和社會(huì)道德困境：1)法律應(yīng)用fMRI技術(shù)可能侵犯憲法和人權(quán)(諸如非法搜查、保持沉默的權(quán)利、思想自由、隱私權(quán)、人格尊嚴(yán),及對(duì)權(quán)利個(gè)人數(shù)據(jù)完整性的保護(hù))；2)科學(xué)技術(shù)會(huì)帶來不公平的偏見,對(duì)技術(shù)的依賴會(huì)影響陪審團(tuán)和法官的職能,侵犯當(dāng)事雙方追求公平審判的權(quán)利；3)在法律領(lǐng)域廣泛使用fMRI技術(shù)的可操作性和社會(huì)可接受性。 科技手段是幫助人類判斷,并且簡(jiǎn)化程序的存在,但是,技術(shù)并不能代替人類判斷。法律流傳千年的體系并非是一個(gè)剛獨(dú)立不到30年的學(xué)科可以打破的,如何利用神經(jīng)科技更有效的為法律服務(wù)才是學(xué)界之后應(yīng)該研究的重點(diǎn)。而對(duì)于自由意志(free will)等法律成立的基礎(chǔ),神經(jīng)科學(xué)的質(zhì)疑過于片面和蒼白。神經(jīng)科學(xué)目前應(yīng)該做的是提供有用的信息,幫助人們做出決定,并且努力發(fā)展和提高其抗干擾性和準(zhǔn)確性,以及如何簡(jiǎn)化使用程序并提高其公正性。只有這樣,未來神經(jīng)科學(xué)技術(shù)和法律的結(jié)合才能更加緊密,自成體系。
[Abstract]:The development of science and technology will always bring some new opportunities and challenges to the law. It also provides a new perspective on the relationship between human behavior and society. Thus, a new discipline was born, which is Neurolaw.There is a broad range of connotations and denotations of this interdisciplinary discipline. However, the most widely used in practice is the use of evidence (neuroscience evidence) obtained from neuroscience and technology in court. This paper discusses the application of neuroscience technology in legal practice-in addition to summarizing the existing achievements, but also summarizes the shortcomings of this technology, hoping that in the future, neuroscience technology can provide more objective measuring tools for people. It can provide theoretical and technical support for the traditional jurisprudence and also hope to establish a more perfect program design from the legal point of view in order to ensure the rational and correct use of neuroscientific evidence. An important neuroscience and technology introduced in this paper is EMRI functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), which is the core of neuroscience evidence. It opens the black box of human thought and behavior by exploring the function of human brain. Lie detection, memory reduction, drug use, identification of juvenile and psychiatric crimes, and so on can all provide test data, and this scientific evidence already exists in court. However, the law has not kept up with the pace of technological development. How to make the right use of science and technology to formulate appropriate regulatory provisions, first of all, we should recognize the shortcomings of fMRI functional magnetic resonance imaging technology and the unsuitable part of the law. Based on the application of fMRI technology in the United States and the theory of the technology itself, this paper summarizes the application of this technology in the practice of legal proceedings. Possible legal obstacles and social moral dilemmas: 1) legal application of fMRI technology may violate constitutions and human rights (such as illegal searches, the right to remain silent, freedom of thought, privacy, human dignity, etc.). And the protection of the integrity of personal data on rights. 2) Science and technology can lead to unfair biases, and reliance on technology can affect the functions of juries and judges. Violation of the parties' right to a fair trial) the operability and social acceptability of the widespread use of fMRI technology in the legal field. Technology helps human judgment and simplifies the existence of procedures, but technology is no substitute for human judgment. The system of millennia of law cannot be broken by a discipline that has been independent for less than 30 years. How to make use of neuroscience and technology to serve the law more effectively is the key point that should be studied in the academic field after that. And for the foundation of the establishment of laws such as free will, Neuroscience questions are too one-sided and pale. What neuroscience should do now is to provide useful information to help people make decisions and to strive to develop and improve their anti-jamming and accuracy. And how to simplify the use of procedures and improve its fairness. Only in this way, the future of neural science and technology and law can be more closely, self-made system.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：中國(guó)科學(xué)技術(shù)大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號(hào)】：D915.13;R445.2

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前3條

1 胡傳鵬;鄧曉紅;周治金;鄧小剛;;神經(jīng)法學(xué):年輕的認(rèn)知神經(jīng)科學(xué)與古老的法學(xué)聯(lián)姻[J];科學(xué)通報(bào);2011年36期

2 樊崇義,陳永生;科技證據(jù)的法定化——刑訴法修正不可忽視的一個(gè)重要問題[J];南都學(xué)壇;2005年02期

3 肖杰文;;法與神經(jīng)科學(xué)研究述評(píng)——兼論認(rèn)知科學(xué)與法[J];河南財(cái)經(jīng)政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2013年03期

，

本文編號(hào)：1636517