Reconstructing the Admissibility Standard for Neuroscientific Evidence Concerning Defendants in Indonesian Criminal Proceedings: A Functional Comparison with United States Federal Law

Abstract

Neuroscientific evidence concerning a defendant may assist in explaining neurological conditions, cognitive functions, and capacities relevant to criminal responsibility. Its use, however, raises issues concerning data sufficiency, methodological reliability, reliability of application to an individual, inferential limitations, mental privacy, and conformity with applicable legal categories. This study examines the adequacy of Indonesian law and reconstructs an admissibility standard for neuroscientific evidence concerning defendants in court proceedings through a functional comparison with United States federal law. This normative legal research is prescriptive in nature and employs statutory, conceptual, case, and comparative approaches. The findings demonstrate that Indonesian law regulates statutory means of evidence, expert testimony, authentication, the lawful acquisition of evidence, health information, personal data protection, examination by the parties, and the obligation to provide reasons in judgments. The existing provisions, however, do not integrate data sufficiency, methodological reliability, reliability of application, and inferential relationships as specific admissibility requirements. The reconstruction produces eleven elements of examination and eight procedural stages. A deficiency in a foundational requirement produces legal consequences when the law in force has expressly prescribed them. Exclusion based on scientific unreliability that has not been regulated requires legal reform. Residual weaknesses affect evidentiary weight. Implementing the standard requires regulation of authority, data governance, expert capacity, equal access, and empirical testing.