In this paper, we argue that the introduction of neuroscientific data by forensic experts in criminal trials will be mostly be used in the future as a means to evaluate or as an indication of an offender's dangerousness, rather than their responsibility. However, in the field of forensic psychiatry, responsibility assessments are progressively being weakened, whereas dangerousness and risk assessment gain increasing importance.

Up to now, “neurolaw” literature remained focused on the use of neuroscience for assessments of criminal responsibility. Neuroscientific evidence is increasingly being used in criminal trials as part of psychiatric testimony. This adaptation may help to find a fair solution to particular cases in which the decision-making process is relevant. In particular, this adjustment is likely to have a great impact on the analysis of the amount and kind of punishment in criminal law. The necessity to adjust neurolaw to scientific results spawns important ethical and social issues that need to be further examined. A cross-disciplinary examination that would take into consideration the findings related to these subjects to actualize them in the legal system without the potential violation of human rights is needed to overcome the distance between science and law and to streamline underlying policies and practices. Recent findings from the neuroscience research challenge traditional legal approaches to many subjects such as lack of responsibility due to mental incapacity, juvenile decision-making, the memory of the witnesses, and emotional harm, among others. The main aim of this Research Topic is to highlight this inconsistency and to examine the ways to address the mismatch between the neuroscientific results and law. However, despite these criticisms, it is hard to find a country that adjusted its common law or the civil law system in response to these criticisms. Doi: 10.3389/978-2-88966-208-1 Over the course of the last decade, there has been an increasing number of neuroscientific findings casting a doubt on the legal system overall or on its components. Neurolaw: The Call for Adjusting Theory Based on Scientific Results.

Justified Temptation by Erin Lockwood