Brain Reading

Abstract Should we trust brain science to read the minds of criminals and consumers? Concerns about justice, privacy, and the health of society might make one deeply suspicious of using neuroscience in such contexts, but such alarmism is unwarranted. Concerns about neuromarketing are often based on overinflated claims about the power of brain imaging to uncover our deepest desires. In contrast, some neuroscientific technologies do provide useful evidence in the law, or at least as useful as the evidence we already permit (an argument from parity). The benefits are modest, but this also limits the damage brain reading can do. Moreover, the meager benefits can be amplified when combined with other tools we already have in our legal toolbelts. The chapter begins with a case in which a man on death row is exonerated partly on the basis of his brain activity.