---
title: "Neurolaw"
chunk: 5/5
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurolaw"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:27:29.062328+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---

== Cautions and concerns ==
Public opinion of neurolaw is influenced by cultural, political, and media-related factors. Surveys show that the general public does not have a well-formed understanding of neurolaw. Approval seems to depend highly on how the topic is framed and may even vary depending on partisanship. Due to glorified depictions of forensics labs on popular television shows, brain imaging has faced criticism for having a "CSI effect". It is possible that some people have a false understanding of forensic science based on inaccurate portrayals. This could lead to them having a stronger opinion about technological evidence or neurolaw initiatives.
Neuroscience is still not fully understood. There is not enough evidence of structural and functional relationships to be able to confidently link a brain feature to a criminal behavior or issue. This uncertainty leaves room for misuse of neuroscientific evidence in a courtroom. American professor of law and psychology Stephen J. Morse described the abuse of neuroscience in courtrooms with a pseudo-disease he called "brain overclaim syndrome". He comments on the idea of people having diminished responsibility or no responsibility for their actions because those actions were caused by "the brain", in situations where the science could not support such causal claims. He raises the question of whether brains should be blamed for crimes, or the people behind them.
Lawmakers and judges are cautious due to the lack of concrete findings in neurolaw. Before making decisions on how to regulate and utilize neuroscience research in court, lawmakers and judges must consider the implications that will come with suggested changes. Neuroimaging and genetic evidence have the potential to be helpful in legal processes and ensure that dangerous criminals stay behind bars, but it also has the potential to be abused in a way that imprisons undeserving parties on purpose or due to negligent use of the science.
Although some experts recognize the possibilities and drawbacks of brain imaging, others still completely reject the field. In the future, judges must decide on the relevance and validity of neurological evidence so that it can enter the courtroom, and juries must be open to understanding scientific concepts but not be too willing to place all faith in neuroscience.

== See also ==
Cognitive liberty

== References ==

== Further reading ==
Eagleman, David (2011). "The Brain on Trial". No. July/August. The Atlantic.
The Lavin Agency Speakers Bureau. "Neuroscience and the Legal System: David Eagleman". YouTube. Archived from the original on 2021-12-15.
The RSA. "David Eagleman - The Brain and The Law". YouTube. Archived from the original on 2021-12-15.
Ienca, Marcello, & Roberto Andorno (2017). "Towards New Human Rights in the Age of Neuroscience and Neurotechnology". Life Sciences, Society and Policy. Vol. 13, no. 5. doi:10.1186/s40504-017-0050-1.{{cite news}}:  CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Petoft, Arian (2015). "Neurolaw: a brief introduction". Iranian Journal of Neurology. Archived from the original on 2015-07-27. Retrieved 2015-01-07.
Petoft, Arian (2015). "Toward Human Behavior Sciences from the Perspective of Neurolaw". International Journal of Public Mental Health and Neurosciences. Archived from the original on 2017-09-03. Retrieved 2015-03-27.
Rosen, Jeffrey (2007-03-11). "The Brain on the Stand". New York Times Magazine. Retrieved 2011-03-22.
Jones, Owen; et al. (2009). "Brain Imaging for Legal Thinkers: A Guide for the Perplexed". Vol. 5. Stanford Technology Law Review. SSRN 1563612.
Jones, Owen, & Francis X. Shen (2012). "Law and Neuroscience in the United States". International Neurolaw: A Comparative Analysis, p. 349, T.M. Spranger, ed. Springer-Verlag. SSRN 2001085.{{cite news}}:  CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Jones, Owen; et al. "Law and Neuroscience Casebook".
"Law and Neuroscience Bibliography".
Wagner, Anthony; et al. (2016). "fMRI and Lie Detection". MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Law and Neuroscience. SSRN 2881586.

== External links ==
Center of Science and Law
The MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Law and Neuroscience homepage
Law and Neuroscience at Vanderbilt
Neurolaw: The Scales of Justice Archived 2007-04-27 at the Wayback Machine
NPR: Jeffrey Rosen on 'Neurolaw' in the Courtroom
Law and Neuroscience Email Listserv