Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Jul 2.
doi: 10.1002/bsl.70006. Online ahead of print.

Under-Interpretation of Neuroimaging Data in Insanity Assessment: A Hidden Risk

Camilla Frangi  1 , Alexa Schincariol  1   2 , Pietro Pietrini  3 , Giuseppe Sartori  1 , Stefano Ferracuti  4 , Cristina Scarpazza  1   5
Affiliations

Under-Interpretation of Neuroimaging Data in Insanity Assessment: A Hidden Risk

Camilla Frangi et al. Behav Sci Law. .

Abstract

Neuroimaging data can provide valuable insights into insanity evaluations, but the debate over its use for legal purposes is far from resolved. While much attention has been given to the risks of over-interpretation, potential errors stemming from under-interpretation received less scrutiny. In this paper, we aim to showcase how this error may influence the results of an insanity evaluation by presenting an Italian forensic case. The defendant presented with intellectual disability and psychotic symptoms coupled with multiple brain abnormalities that were interpreted as variant of normal neuroanatomy. The case is discussed in detail. This article offers an insight into a neglected issue in forensic neuroscience, destined to gain prominence as this discipline becomes increasingly important in criminal justice systems worldwide. We recommend the use of a multidisciplinary approach to insanity to reduce the likelihood of error. In this context, neuroimaging can play an important role, and its interpretation should strictly adhere to guidelines to minimize the possibility of both over-interpretation and under-interpretation.

Keywords: cognitive bias; criminal liability; expert witness; forensic psychiatry; insanity defence; law; neuroimaging; neuroscience.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Aboraya, A., E. Rankin, C. France, A. El‐Missiry, and C. John. 2006. “The Reliability of Psychiatric Diagnosis Revisited: The Clinician’s Guide to Improve the Reliability of Psychiatric Diagnosis.” Psychiatry (Edgmont) 3, no. 1: 41.
    1. Adetunji, B. A., B. Basil, M. Mathews, A. Williams, T. Osinowo, and O. Oladinni. 2006. “Detection and Management of Malingering in a Clinical Setting.” Primary Psychiatry 13, no. 1: 61.
    1. Adjorlolo, S., H. C. O. Chan, and M. DeLisi. 2019. “Mentally Disordered Offenders and the Law: Research Update on the Insanity Defense, 2004–2019.” International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 67: 101507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2019.101507.
    1. Agopian‐Dahlenmark, L., T. Mathiesen, and Å. Bergendal. 2020. “Cognitive Dysfunction and Subjective Symptoms in Patients With Arachnoid Cyst Before and After Surgery.” Acta Neurochirurgica 162, no. 5: 1041–1050. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00701‐020‐04225‐9.
    1. Anckarsäter, H., S. Radovic, C. Svennerlind, P. Höglund, and F. Radovic. 2009. “Mental Disorder Is a Cause of Crime: The Cornerstone of Forensic Psychiatry.” International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 32, no. 6: 342–347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2009.09.002.