TFL Vsebine / Zbornik znanstvenih razprav

Z vse večjo uporabo dokazov, temelječih na nevroznanosti, se v dokaznem kazenskem pravu odpirajo številna vprašanja. Prvo sivo polje je povezano z omejeno dokazno vrednostjo tovrstnega gradiva, ki izvira iz številnih omejitev in spekulativnosti sodobnih metod možganskega preslikavanja. Glede uporabe strukturnih možganskih preslikav v kazenskem postopku je mogoče ugotoviti, da so te kljub globokemu posegu v zasebnost v našem kazenskem pravu dopustne. Celo več, obdolženca in priče je mogoče tudi proti njihovi volji podvreči postopkom preslikavanja. Drugače pa je s pristopi, ki nevroznanost uporabljajo kot sredstvo za zasliševanje. Ker gre za pridobivanje testimonialnih dokazov, ki zaobidejo zaslišančevo voljo po izpovedovanju, so takšne metode zaradi privilegija zoper samoobtožbo in prepovedi uporabe nedovoljenih zdravniških posegov in sredstev v kazenskem postopku nedopustne.

The increasing use of neuroscience-based evidence in criminal courts raises many questions in evidentiary criminal law. The first grey area is connected to the limited probative value of such material that is intertwined with the numerous limitations of modern methods of neuroimaging and their speculative nature. The use of structural brain images in criminal procedure can be considered admissible in Slovenian law, despite the deep intrusion into one’s privacy. The accused and the witness can be subjected to the neuroimaging procedure even against their will. However, the opposite can be said about approaches that use neuroscience as an interrogation tool. Due to the privilege against self-incrimination and the ban of the use of medical interventions and agents, such methods are deemed inadmissible in criminal procedure, since they gain testimonial evidence by circumventing the interrogated person’s will to testify.