Dr Steve Taylor

However, new developments in neuroscience are leading to greater questioning of the idea of “free” will in many more criminal cases.  Defence teams are using neurological evidence to show that although their clients weren’t insane and knew what they were doing, damage to their brains deprived them of the free will to make a rational choice. This is called neurolaw.

This workshop will look at, and illustrate, neurolaw in three areas: acquired brain damage; traumatic childhood experiences and genetic predisposition.

Supporters argue that neurolaw is making justice fairer by recognising how biological factors can impair decision-making. Critics warn that neuroscientific evidence is being overstated, and taking us towards era where any bad behaviour will imply a problem with the brain.

For students, this question can be applied to a number of topic areas, including biopsychology, issues & debates & forensic psychology.