This comes from Majikthise, a politics blog with some philosophy on the side. Lindsay Beyerstein thinks neuroscience doesn’t contribute much to the law:
…these imaging studies don’t seem to be telling the legal profession very much over and above what the law and psychology specialists have been studying for years.
Joshua Greene and Jonathan Cohen anticipate this skepticism in their article, For the law, neuroscience changes nothing and everything [Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B (2004) 359, 1775–1785]. From the abstract:
New neuroscience will change the law, not by undermining its current assumptions, but by transforming people’s moral intuitions about free will and responsibility… We foresee, and recommend, a shift away from punishment aimed at retribution in favour of a more progressive, consequentialist approach to the criminal law.
This is the rational course of action. However, I wonder if lawyers, judges, juries, victims and law-makers will be willing to listen to neuroscientists. Neurolaw might be consigned to law review articles that never receive notice in the legal profession.