Neurolaw: recognizing opportunities and challenges for psychiatry.

A 40-year-old schoolteacher begins secretly collecting child pornography and making advances toward his young stepdaughter.1 After evaluation by a psychiatrist and neurologist, an MRI is obtained, and it shows a huge orbitofrontal tumour. As soon as it has been resected, the legally relevant sexual behaviour stops. A few months later, however, the behaviour returns. As becomes clear on MRI, the tumour has also regrown. It is, again, resected, and the legally relevant sexual behaviour stays away, apparently permanently.2 To what extent should this schoolteacher be considered criminally responsible for his behaviour?3 What does a case like this mean for the criminal responsibility of people with (acquired) pedophilic behaviour in general?4 What does it mean for the role neuroimaging should play in criminal cases? These are just some questions that may come to mind regarding this often-cited case, described by Burns and Swerdlow.1 Such questions can be categorized as “neurolaw” questions. Neurolaw is a rapidly developing field of interdisciplinary research concerning the relevance of neurosciences to the law, especially criminal law.5–9 Clearly, psychiatry is closely related to both neuroscience and the law, and this is particularly true for forensic psychiatry. Neurolaw, therefore, is of specific relevance for forensic psychiatry. In this editorial I introduce the 3 main research areas in neurolaw, identify 3 significant opportunities for psychiatry as well as 2 major challenges related to psychiatry and neurolaw, and argue for the active participation of psychiatrists in neurolaw developments.