ABSTRACT
Scientific advances precipitated legal decisions that have also supported prudence in relation to neurocriminology. As was true of approaches to addressing crime, the socio–cultural–political context in which neurocriminology is developing has and will likely continue to influence its application. The globalization of communication has at once broadened opportunities for innovation and served to protect against "neuro-overreach." When neuroscience has been applied prematurely or badly, as when electroencephalography data were admitted as evidence of murder, or simply misunderstood. As when colourful magnetic resonance imaging images are introduced to prove the cause of a defendant's criminal behaviour, the scientific and legal communities respond, and corrective action. The brain's refusal to yield unambiguous responses has precluded neuroscience from—as hoped or feared—providing the categorical answers sought by the criminal justice system. The promise of neuroscience is that, in time, it will forge new paths to predict and interrupt or—at the least—more precisely explain, criminal behaviour.
