40 Pages Posted: 6 Feb 2009 Last revised: 26 Dec 2013
Date Written: February 6, 2009
According to a wide variety of scholars, scientists, and policymakers, neuroscience promises to transform law. Many neurolegalists - those championing the power of neuroscience for law - proceed from problematic premises regarding the relationship of mind to brain. In this Article, we make the case that their accounts of the nature of mind are implausible and that their conclusions are overblown. Thus, their claims of the power of neuroscience for law cannot be sustained. We discuss a wide array of examples including lie detection, criminal-law doctrine, economic decision-making, moral decision-making, and jurisprudence.
Keywords: Neuroscience, fMRI, Mind, Brain, Mereological Fallacy, Lie Detection, Deception, Voluntariness, Intent, Knowledge, Economic Decision-Making, Moral Decision-Making, Jurisprudence, Legal Decision-Making
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
Pardo, Michael S. and Patterson, Dennis, Philosophical Foundations of Law and Neuroscience (February 6, 2009). University of Illinois Law Review, 2010; U of Alabama Public Law Research Paper No. 1338763. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1338763 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1338763