Integrating neuroscience into law is limited by the inability to establish causation between brain activity and behavior, rendering its use in the legal domain uncertain and less institutionalized.
Author
Chetan Sinha, Professor, Jindal Global Law School, O.P. Jindal Global University, Sonipat, Haryana, India
Summary
What does the brain mean in a legal domain, and how does integrating neuroscience and law go beyond the practical difficulties highlighted by social scientists and legal theorists? The debate about the confluence of neuroscience and law is both promising and uncertain.
Legal theorists took it as a conceptual error, and neuroscience advocates find it a promising emerging field. The social psychological approach towards law is for critical integration of both. Scholars took an alternative route, considering it a fascinating element of scientific discourse. The present article aims to show that the coming of “brain language” in the everyday legal discourse will not become a reality, as truth is inferred through everyday experiences and the interpretations of scientific knowledge. Scientific knowledge through mapping active brain areas by the available brain visualizing techniques shows the correlation between the brain and behavior, not the causation.
So, its use in the legal domain seems less institutionalized, showing the determinism of the brain as less authentic in itself when compared with the intuitive path embedded in culture and history. Implication for sociolegal psychology working for dignity and social justice is discussed.
Published in: Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science
To read the full article, please click here.
