Vincent Gigante started acting strange. He would walk down the streets in pajamas muttering to himself. How could this be the high profile crime lord everyone knew? Suspicions arose that he was putting on an act to be able to claim the insanity defense. Several experts testified on his behalf, claiming he could not be tried due to psychosis. There was also a possibility of dementia, which the defense tried to support with PET scans. 

Jonathan Brodie, psychiatrist and technical advisor to the judge, argued the PET data was inconclusive. Gigante was found guilty and confessed to faking mental illness, and later evidence suggested that he was indeed quite mentally competent; it was all in the interpretation of data.

Prediction of criminal behavior, while not exceedingly common, has been around formally for several decades. One of the first clear cases was Thomas Barefoot, who was convicted of killing a police officer. Following testimonies from psychiatrists that labeled Barefoot a “criminal psychopath,” he was sentenced to death, largely due to fears of what he would do in the future. Risk assessments have been carried out since then using a holistic range of factors, but often end problematically entangled with bias. 

Some neuroscientists claim the field could enhance risk assessments and make them more objective. This is quite a controversial topic, reminding people of eugenics and pseudoscience practices that were commonplace not too long ago.