Brain Science for Lawyers, Judges, and Policy Makers
Lawyers increasingly bring brain science into courtrooms and policy discussions. This book is tailored to the legal community and provides a user-friendly introduction of neuroscience and the law for lawyers, judges and policymakers.
What inspired you and your co-authors to write this book?
There are many books that introduce brain science. But there was not a book tailored specifically for the legal community. As neuroscientific evidence increasingly reaches courtrooms and legislatures, we saw demand for a short, accessible, legally relevant introduction to brain science. This book fills that gap. It’s a starter kit for lawyers and judges to get acquainted with the types of brain evidence that’s relevant for practice.
What are some of the issues this book explores?
The book provides a high-level tour of the brain, and along the way helps readers see how this brain science may be legally relevant. The book addresses the basic brain science and, importantly, the technologies that now allow scientists and clinicians to peer into the living human brain to see how it’s working. These technologies will generate new legal evidence, so we also address a number of limits and cautions about neuroscientific evidence— considerations that will be important when assessing admissibility and the value (or not) of brain scans.
Brain science is a complicated subject. How does this book demystify neuroscience to make it more accessible to readers?
We strived to minimize the scientific jargon, not dive too deep into the granular details, use multiple graphics to illustrate concepts, and write in plain language that non-scientists can understand. It helped that our five co-authors include two neuroscientists, one judge, and two law professors. We made sure that our text was written for lawyers, not scientists.
What are the key takeaways from your book?
There are three key takeaways from the book. First, lawyers don’t need a science degree to understand how the brain works and how we can measure brain structure and brain function. Just as attorneys and judges must become experts in other complex topics beyond the law, so too can they become competent neurolawyers. Second, readers will learn that we are making great strides in understanding brain circuitry — but that there is still much to learn. This uncertainty finds its way into courtrooms and legislatures, and the book gives readers the background they need to adjudicate brain-based claims. Third, readers will see why neuroscience evidence will increasingly be appearing in legal contexts. Understanding the brain will keep cutting-edge attorneys ahead of the curve.
Who should read this book?
Our target audiences are lawyers, judges, policymakers, and law students — those in law and policy who are on the frontlines of applying neuroscience in real-world cases and legislation.
What is something you were surprised to discover when writing this book?
I was surprised that we could keep the book so short and concise. Although the brain is complex, we were able to distill the essential knowledge that lawyers need into an accessible text.
What do you hope to accomplish with this book?
We hope to improve the responsible use of neuroscience insights and evidence in law and policymaking. We anticipate that this will be an area of growth in the years to come.
Did you encounter any challenges or barriers when writing your book?
The biggest challenge was to make the complexities of brain science accessible to an audience who may not have opened a science textbook since high school. At the same time, we didn’t want to water down the science too much because those complexities would show up in litigation and legislative debate. We think we’ve struck a great balance.
Lastly, neurolaw is an interdisciplinary field that seems relatively new. What problems or issues do you hope to see neurolaw address in the future?
The biggest challenge is that our understanding of the brain remains so limited. As one colleague has said, if understanding the brain is like running a mile, we’ve come three inches. This means that neuroscience in law requires careful consideration of the quality and relevance of the science, especially for individual litigants. But as neurotechnology improves, our understanding of the brain will also improve, and brain science will become increasingly important in legal and policy discourse.