Michael S. Pardo and Dennis Patterson (University of Alabama School of Law and European University Institute) has posted The Promise of Neuroscience for Law: 'Overclaiming' in Jurisprudence, Morality, and Economics (Patterson, Dennis, and Michael S. Pardo (eds.). Philosophical Foundations of Law and Neuroscience. Oxford University Press, 2016, 231-248) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
Claims for the relevance and importance of neuroscience for law are stronger than ever. Notwithstanding persuasive arguments that illustrate a wide degree of 'overclaiming' in the literature, new claims alleging the importance of neuroscience for law are common. This chapter discusses three examples of overclaiming how developments in neuroscience can contribute to issues in legal theory. The first example focuses on general jurisprudential theories about the nature of law and legal reasoning. We evaluate arguments concerning how neuroscientific evidence will contribute important insights for jurisprudential debates. The second and third examples concern moral and economic decision making, respectively. We evaluate several arguments about how neuroscientific evidence will illuminate decision making in these domains and how these insights ought to be applied to issues in law and public policy.