Neurotechnology in criminal justice: key points for neuroscientists and engineers.

Abstract

Abstract Neurotechnology encompasses any device (including hardware, testing/stimulation paradigms and data analysis/ interpretation algorithms) that interfaces with the central nervous system to modulate or monitor neural activity. Driven by continuous scientific advances, neurotechnology is increasingly applied in research, clinical and consumer settings. The recent considerable investments in neurotechnology from private sector parties such as Blackrock, Neuralink and Kernel, and the growing interest of policy makers, are likely to further accelerate this trend. 
One area of application for neurotechnology is the criminal justice system. Neurotechnology may provide legally relevant information about people’s past, present and future behavior. In addition, treatment programs in criminal justice may apply neurotechnological risk assessment and interventions. Currently, the use of neurotechnologies in criminal justice is mostly limited to the diagnosis of neurological conditions such as epilepsy, brain trauma, and dementia, incidentally aiding the assessment of fitness to stand trial and legal insanity1. Neurotechnologies have also sporadically been used for other applications in criminal justice2. 
Here, we identify concerns and priorities for responsible implementation of neurotechnology in the criminal justice system beyond its current use (BOX1). For that, we first consider areas where neurotechnology has potential value. Then, we identify key requirements that have to be met for the techniques to be usable in criminal justice settings. These requirements often deviate from standards typically applied in neuroscientific research. Using some of the most prominent developments of neurotechnology as examples, we briefly describe to what extent emerging neurotechnologies currently match these requirements. Finally, we assess human rights issues related to the implementation of neurotechnology in criminal justice. We conclude that responsible real-world implementation requires neurotechnologies to be effective, reliable and compliant with human rights, and argue that research and development of neurotechnologies for use in criminal justice should focus on the user-context and prioritize validation for intended use.