n. The philosophy and practice of using neuroscientific evidence and theories in the legal system.
Also Seen As
But what about people who rape and murder — should we feel empathy for them? Should they be allowed to argue in court that their brains made them do it? Enter the new world of "neurolaw" — in which neuroscience is used as evidence in the courtroom.
—Barbara Bradley Hagerty, “A Neuroscientist Uncovers A Dark Secret,” NPR, June 29, 2010
The extent of that revolution is hotly debated, but the influence of what some call neurolaw is clearly growing. … Proponents of neurolaw say that neuroscientific evidence will have a large impact not only on questions of guilt and punishment but also on the detection of lies and hidden bias, and on the prediction of future criminal behavior.
—Jeffrey Rosen, “The Brain on the Stand,” The New York Times, March 11, 2007
2004 (earliest)
A new report sponsored by the Dana Foundation titled Neuroscience and the Law: Brain, Mind, and the Scales of Justice examines the legal issues raised by advances in the study of the human brain, including free will, cognitive enhancement, lie detection, and behavior prediction.
—Zack Lynch, “Neurolaw: The Scales of Justice,” Brain Waves, September 16, 2004