The Times (of London) has a good skeptical piece by Professor Raymond Tallis on the dubious rise of neurolaw:

The legal profession in America is taking an increasing interest in neuroscience. There is a flourishing academic discipline of "neurolaw" and neurolawyers are penetrating the legal system. Vanderbilt University recently opened a $27 million neuroimaging centre and hopes to enrol students in a programme in the law and neuroscience. In the courts, as in the trial of serial rapist and murderer Bobby Joe Long, brain-scan evidence is being invoked in support of pleas of diminished responsibility. The idea is abroad that developments in neuroscience - in particular the observation of activity in the living brain, using techniques such as functional magnetic resonance imaging - have shown us that we are not as free, or as accountable for our actions, as we traditionally thought.

Which leads defence lawyers to try arguing their clients didn't commit murder - it's their brains that are to blame.

Those who blame the brain should be challenged as to why they stop at the brain when they seek the causes of bad behaviour. Since the brain is a physical object, it is wired into nature at large. "My brain made me do it" must mean (ultimately) that "The Big Bang" made me do it. Neuro-determinism quickly slides into determinism tout court.

On the other hand:

The brain is, of course, the final common pathway of all actions. You can't do much without a brain. Decapitation is, in most instances, associated with a decline in IQ.

Well, quite. Read on...

Thanks for the tip Andy.