Baker on Neurscience and the Law

Greg Baker (William and Mary, Law) has posted Neuroscience and the Law: Real Potential with a Healthy Dose of Caution (West Virginia Law Review, Vol. 3, No. 2, 2009) to SSRN (Hat tip to Larry Solum).  Here is the abstract:

This article will discuss the fascinating and growing area of neuroscience and the law. The innovations in science, medicine, and technology create unique opportunities for the law. Creative problem-solving in the law can take cues from many of these innovations. Brain imaging for example is discussed as one of the newest creations that might play a pivotal role in the criminal justice system. While I endorse the use of science and technology as an integral part of a multidisciplinary approach to legal problem solving, I also urge we take such steps with caution. In considering the appropriate legal roles for many of these relatively new creations to take, we must be reminded that fundamental legal principles, the Constitution, and our Bill of Rights are at stake.

Greg Baker (William and Mary, Law) has posted Neuroscience and the Law: Real Potential with a Healthy Dose of Caution (West Virginia Law Review, Vol. 3, No. 2, 2009) to SSRN (Hat tip to Larry Solum).  Here is the abstract:

This article will discuss the fascinating and growing area of neuroscience and the law. The innovations in science, medicine, and technology create unique opportunities for the law. Creative problem-solving in the law can take cues from many of these innovations. Brain imaging for example is discussed as one of the newest creations that might play a pivotal role in the criminal justice system. While I endorse the use of science and technology as an integral part of a multidisciplinary approach to legal problem solving, I also urge we take such steps with caution. In considering the appropriate legal roles for many of these relatively new creations to take, we must be reminded that fundamental legal principles, the Constitution, and our Bill of Rights are at stake.

Comments

[anonymous]

The interested reader should look critically at this article, for the scholarship therein is questionable. It relies on reference to Rosen's NYT article to identify emerging themes in the law, and as a reference to some doctrinal issues. In fact, it relies extremely heavily on the Rosen article without appropriate acknowledgment. For example, the second paragraph on page 3 is nearly identical to a paragraph in the Rosen article, but is not paraphrased or block quoted, which would be the proper format. As to the neuroscience, it relies heavily on secondary and non-neuroscience sources for information. Overall, this article is thinly researched (I haven't counted the total number of unique citations, but they are not many), and the analysis leaves much to be desired. I would not consider this article a substantial contribution to the neuroscience and law literature. I hope the editors at the journal can appropriately edit this article to at least correct the scholarly integrity.