Document Type
Article
Publication Date
2019
Abstract
This chapter suggests that for conceptual, empirical, and practical reasons, neuroscience in general and non-invasive brain imaging in particular are not likely to revolutionize the law and our conception of ourselves, but may make modest contributions to legal policy and case adjudication if the legal relevance of the science is properly understood.
Keywords
Criminal law, neuroscience, non-invasive brain imaging, Brain Overclaim Syndrome, language of mechanism v. folk psychology, determinism, responsibility. neurodeterminism, mental states, behavioral criteria of law, empirical problems, replication crisis
Repository Citation
Morse, Stephen J., "Neurohype and the Law: A Cautionary Tale" (2019). Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law. 2006.
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship/2006
Included in
Behavior and Behavior Mechanisms Commons, Criminal Law Commons, Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons, Law and Psychology Commons, Medical Jurisprudence Commons, Neurosciences Commons, Public Law and Legal Theory Commons, Science and Technology Law Commons
Publication Citation
In Casting Light on the Dark Side of Brain Imaging (Amir Raz & Robert Thibault eds., Elsevier 2019).