oversimplified, this increases the likelihood of confusion and controversy that, in turn, is likely to foster skepticism concerning the admissibility of neuroscientific evidence in the courtroom. There are clear, practical areas in which neuroscience can truly serve as a valuable informant to criminal law, areas in which neuroscience may increase justice where justice was previously absent. Namely, neuroscience grants us the unique capacity to “look inside” the brain of a criminal offender and attain a clearer understanding of how certain mental abnormalities might fit into the bigger picture of criminal behavior. It would be an indefensible disservice to justice if such opportunities for interdisciplinary collaboration were closed off due to miseducation and unwarranted mistrust.
The author would like to extend her gratitude to Chapman University Undergraduate Law Review editor Owen Lucas Agbayani for his considerable and generous support throughout the writing process. Additionally, the author would like to thank Dr. Uri Maoz and Dr. Michael Robinson for their assistance with the preparation of this manuscript.
28
