The need for a serious interdisciplinary approach to forensic neurotechnologies. A case study from an Italian court

The need for a serious interdisciplinary approach to forensic neurotechnologies. A case study from an Italian court. In this paper, I argue that bioethicists, forensic scientists, and legal scholars should conduct more serious interdisciplinary research to properly recognise ethical and technical problems, weigh the risks and benefits of forensic neurotechnologies, and find normative solutions following the European legal framework on human rights. The literature shows a gap in interdisciplinary research on how neurotechnologies can influence the adversarial legal system commonly adopted in Europe. A seriously interdisciplinary approach allows a proper distinction to be drawn between technical and ethical issues. Closing this gap will help to identify ethical issues that are overlooked or confused with purely technical ones. That is, sorting out issues that can be solved through the advancement of the state of the art of new technologies and issues that need value-based decisions. In addition, by highlighting these problems, we can observe the dangers posed to the fundamental rights on which the European criminal systems are based, such as the right to not self-incriminate and the right to defend themselves expressed in the art. 6 ECHR. Through the presentation of a judicial case, I will show how ethical and legal issues can be overlooked or mistaken for technical issues in real-life cases, and I will argue for some normative solutions in line with the European approach to human rights and new technologies. For instance, drawing a supranational instrument, taking as an example the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, could help set minimum safety standards and limitations to the use of forensic neurotechnologies to avoid the risks of medicalisation, profiling, and discrimination. Moreover, it would help establish a proper forum to foster the interdisciplinary debate needed in this context.