The Problem with Neurolaw

This Article describes and critiques the increasingly popular program of reductive neuroLaw. Law has irrevocably entered the age of neuroscience. Various institutes and conferences are devoted to questions about the relation between neuroscience and legal procedures and doctrines. Most of the new “neuroLaw” scholarship focuses on evidentiary and related issues, and is important and beneficial. But some versions of reductive neuroLaw are frightening. Although they claim to liberate us from false conceptions of ourselves and to open new spaces for more scientific applications of the law, they end up stripping away all notions of “selves” and of “law.” This Article argues that a revitalized sense of transcendence is required to avoid the violent metaphysics of reductive neuroLaw and to maintain the integrity of both “law” and “science.” * Professor of Law, Seton Hall University Law School, and Director, Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology. Thanks to Brian Tamanaha, Brad Gregory, Dennis Patterson, and Michael Pardo for helpful comments on earlier versions of this Article. OPDERBECK FOR CHRISTENSEN6 (DO NOT DELETE) 2/27/2014 6:43 PM 498 SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 58:497