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.
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
Morse, Stephen J., "Neurohype and the Law: A Cautionary Tale" (2019). Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law. 2006.
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