ABSTRACT
The exact number of times neuroscience evidence is admitted into court is unknown, although both surveys of forensic specialists and data from case citations in the legal databases show that such evidence has become fairly routines for the criminal justice system. Researchers and clinicians diagnose and study brain deficits by comparing their patient's brain scan with averaged scans of normal individuals to pinpoint any differences that might be relevant to behavior. Most published imaging and other neurophysiological data are from averaged groups—neuroscientists scan several brains, compile the results, and then highlight the central tendencies in the data. Both traditional courts and diversion courts have as their goal an orderly society with law-abiding citizens, but the similarities between them end there. Even though diversion treatments result in a loss of rights for defendants, they are not punitive in any traditional sense. Diversion courts rely on the idea of "therapeutic justice," which actually subverts conventional notions of punishment.
