The emerging subject of Neurolaw. A critical analysis of the impact on young offenders' jurisprudence

The Advent of Neurolaw: The Intersection of Neuroscience and Law. Nowadays, more than ever, scientific advances permeate almost every aspect of society. Science is evolving and this phenomenon leads to the need to analyze more and more the elements around us. Among the advances in scientific knowledge, the development of the field of neuroscience is noteworthy. Neuroscience can be considered in relation to several different human sciences, one of which is law. The intersection of Neuroscience and Law gives rise to Neurolaw. Due to the application of current neuroscience findings in legal proceedings, legislation, and legal theory, neurolaw has expanded in scope. This paper's goal is to examine this relationship, but more importantly, the manifold debates and issues surrounding this topic. There are different positions as to whether the interactions between these two disciplines can be a threat or a strength, and the analysis of these opposite views is useful to investigate the subject of Neurolaw and its impact in today’s courtrooms, especially related to criminal responsibility. In particular, one of the areas where neurolaw is most frequently mentioned is the treatment of young offenders in criminal trials. The purpose of this study is to examine how brain connections and criminal responsibility are related, what this entails, and how this link is understood in modern courts, especially with regard to juvenile offenders in the US legal theory. The analysis will be almost entirely based on the US legal theory because the field of neurolaw was born in the US jurisdiction. The discussion will proceed with a few of the most important cases in this field before concluding with a brief examination of a contemporary case example. The case at hand is Jones v. Mississippi (141 S. Ct. 1307 (2021)), whereas some of the most significant cases cited are: Roper v. Simmons (543 U.S. 551 (2005)), (Graham v. Florida 560 U.S. 48 (2010)), and Miller v. Alabama (567 U.S. 460 (2012)). The primary objective of this final examination is to critically investigate the impact of the new field of Neurolaw on young offenders' jurisprudence, while mainly adopting a sociological viewpoint.