|
Abstract:
|
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 |