Download this Paper Open PDF in Browser

Law and Neuroscience

33 THE JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE 17624 (2013)

Vanderbilt Public Law Research Paper No. 14-18

7 Pages Posted: 7 May 2014 Last revised: 15 May 2014

Owen D. Jones

Vanderbilt University - Law School & Dept. of Biological Sciences

Rene Marois

Vanderbilt University - Department of Psychology
Center for Integrative and Cognitive Neuroscience

Martha J. Farah

University of Pennsylvania

Henry T. Greely

Stanford Law School

Date Written: November 6, 2013

Abstract

Law and neuroscience seem strange bedfellows. But the engagement of law with neuroscientific evidence was inevitable. For one thing, the effectiveness of legal systems in regulating behavior and meting out justice often depends on weighing evidence about how and why a person behaved as he or she did. And these are things that neuroscience can sometimes illuminate. For another, lawyers are ethically bound to champion their clients’ interests. So they remain alert for new, relevant, or potentially persuasive information, such as neuroscience may at times offer, that could help to explain or contextualize behavior of their clients. In light of this, and in the wake of remarkable growth in and visibility of neuroscientific research, a distinct field of Law & Neuroscience (sometimes called “neurolaw”) has emerged in barely a decade.

Whether this engagement is ultimately more for better or for worse (there will be both) will depend in large measure on the effectiveness of transdisciplinary partnerships between neuroscientists and legal scholars. How can they best help the legal system to understand both the promise and the perils of using neuroscientific evidence in legal proceedings? And how can they help legal decision-makers draw only legally and scientifically sound inferences about the relationships between particular neuroscientific evidence and particular behaviors?

In this article, we highlight some efforts to establish and expand such partnerships. We identify some of the key reasons why neuroscience may be useful to law, providing examples along the way. In doing so, we hope to further stimulate interdisciplinary communication and collaborative research in this area.

Keywords: law and neuroscience, psychology, neurolaw, criminal responsibility, tort liability, evidence, brain, memory, injury, emotion, lie detection, judging, psychopathy, fMRI, EEG, decision making, neuroethics, punishment, sentencing

JEL Classification: K13, K14, K40, K42

Suggested Citation

Jones, Owen D. and Marois, Rene and Farah, Martha J. and Greely, Henry T., Law and Neuroscience (November 6, 2013). 33 THE JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE 17624 (2013); Vanderbilt Public Law Research Paper No. 14-18. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2432452

Owen Jones (Contact Author)

Vanderbilt University - Law School & Dept. of Biological Sciences ( email )

131 21st Avenue South
Nashville, TN 37203-1181
United States

HOME PAGE: http://law.vanderbilt.edu/bio/owen-jones

Rene Marois

Vanderbilt University - Department of Psychology
Center for Integrative and Cognitive Neuroscience ( email )

Nashville, TN 37240
United States

Martha J. Farah

University of Pennsylvania ( email )

Philadelphia, PA 19104
United States

Henry (Hank) Greely

Stanford Law School ( email )

559 Nathan Abbott Way
Stanford, CA 94305-8610
United States
650-723-2517 (Phone)
650-725-0253 (Fax)

Paper statistics

Downloads
528
Rank
61,763
Abstract Views
2,410