Skip to main content

Law and Neuroscience

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Encyclopedia of the Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy

Introduction

This entry will be structured into five sections. In the first section, an overview of what the field of law and neuroscience (henceforth L&N) is about will be outlined. The second section will explain how cognitive neuroscience has a greater relevance for L&N debates than other neuroscientific domains which, as will be shown in the third section, has been pivotal to the original activity of neuro-lawyers. A short presentation of the set of technologies used to obtain images from the brain and sustaining L&N literature will follow. In the fifth section, a few examples of the impact of neuroscientific outcomes on some legal concepts and practices will be presented. Some of the arguments advanced by those authors that call upon a revolutionary impact of neuroscience on law and by those who predicts its irrelevance, if not its dangers, will be also outlined throughout the presentation.

What Is Law and Neuroscience?

L&N is an ongoing discussion about to what extent it is...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Bennet MN, Hacker PMS (2003) Philosophical foundations of neuroscience. Blackwell, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Boone W, Piccinini G (2016) The cognitive neuroscience revolution. Synthese 193:1509–1534

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks JD (2014) “What any Parent Knows” But the Supreme Court Misunderstands: Reassessing Neuroscience’s Role in Diminished Capacity Jurisprudence. New Criminal Law Review: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal 17(3):442–501

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bunge M (2010) Matter and Mind. A philosophical Inquiry, Springer, Dordrech/London/New York

    Google Scholar 

  • De Brigard F, Mandelbaum E, Ripley D (2009) Responsibility and the brain sciences. Ethical Theory Moral Pract 12(5):511–524

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eklund A, Nichols TE, Knutssson H (2016) Cluster failure: why fMRI inferences for spatial extent have inflated false-positive rates. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 113(28):7900–7905

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farah MJ (2005) Neuroethics: the practical and the philosophical. Trends Cogn Sci 9(1):1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farahany N (ed) (2009) The impact of behavioral sciences on criminal law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Garland B (ed) (2004) Neuroscience and the law. Brain, mind and the sclaes of justice. Dana Press, New York/Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Gazzaniga MS (Chief ed) (2004) The cognitive neuroscience, 3rd edn. MIT, London/Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Gazzaniga MS, Ivry RB, Mangun GR (2008) Cognitive neuroscience: the biology of mind. Norton, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodenough O, Tucker M (2010) Law and cognitive neuroscience. Annu Rev Law Soc Sci 6:61–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green J, Cohen J (2004) For the law, neuroscience changes nothing and everithing. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B, Biological Science. 359 (1451):1775–1785

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jamie D, Brooks JD (2014) “What any parent knows” but the supreme court misunderstands: reassessing Neuroscience’s role in diminished capacity jurisprudence. New Crim Law Rev Int Interdisciplinary J 17(3):442–501

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones OD, Schall JD, Shen FX (2014) Law & neuroscience. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Libet B, Freeman A, Sutherland K (eds) (1999) The volitional brain. Towards a neuroscience of free will. Imprint Academic, Exeter, (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  • Monteleone GT, Phan KL, Nusbaum HC, Fitzgerald D, Irick JS (2009) Detection of deception using fMRI: better than chance, but well below perfection. Soc Neurosci 4:528–538

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morse SJ (2004) New neuroscience, old problems. In Garland B (ed), Neuroscience and the Law: Brain, Mind, and the Scales of Justice, pp157–198. New York, NY, USA: Dana

    Google Scholar 

  • Morse SJ (2006) Brain overclaim syndrome and criminal responsibility: a diagnostic note. Ohio State J Crim Law 3:397–412

    Google Scholar 

  • Morse SJ (2008) Determinism and the death of folk psychology: two challenges to responsibility from neuroscience. Minnesota J Law Sci Technol 9(1):1–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Morse SJ (2011) Lost in traslation?: An essay on law and neuroscience. In: Freeman M (ed) Law and neuroscience, current legal issues (Vol. 13):529–562

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Pardo MS, Patterson D (2013) Minds, brains, and law. The conceptual foundations of law and neuroscience. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pardo MS, Patterson D (2014) Morse, mind and mental causation. Crim Law Philos. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-014-9327-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raichle ME (2009) A brief history of human brain mapping. Trends Neurosci 32:118–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santosousso A (2009) Le neuroscienze e il diritto. Obis, Pavia

    Google Scholar 

  • Schauer F (2010) Neuroscience, Lie-Detection, and the Law: A Contrarian View. Trends Cogn Sci 14(3)101–03

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shen FX, Gromet DM (2015) Red states, blue states, and brain states issue framing, partisanship, and the future of neurolaw in the United States. Ann Am Acad Pol Soc Sci 658(1):86–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spranger TM (ed) (2012) International neurolaw. A comparative analysis. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor JS et al (1991) Neuropsychologists and Neurolawyers. Neuropsychology 5(4):293–305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor JS (2015) Neurolaw and Traumatic Brain Injury: Principles for Trial Lawyers, 84 University of Missouri at Kansas City Law Review. 397–399

    Google Scholar 

  • Tovino SA (2008) The impact of neuroscience on health law. Neuroethics 1:101–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uttal W (2008) Neuroscience in the courtroom: what every lawyer should know about the mind and the brain. Lawyers & Judges Publishing, Tucson

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner A (2011) Can neuroscience identify lies? In: Gazzaniga M (ed) A judge’s guide to neuroscience: a concise introduction. University of California, Santa Barbara

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinberg DS et al (2008) The seductive allure of neuroscience explanations. J Cogn Neurosci 23(3):470–477

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeki S, Goodenough O (eds) (2006) Law and the brain. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maribel Narváez Mora .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Section Editor information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature B.V.

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Narváez Mora, M. (2020). Law and Neuroscience. In: Sellers, M., Kirste, S. (eds) Encyclopedia of the Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6730-0_88-2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6730-0_88-2

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-007-6730-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-007-6730-0

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference Law and CriminologyReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Publish with us

Policies and ethics