<p>What does
the brain mean in a legal domain and how the integration of neuroscience and
law goes beyond the practical difficulties highlighted by the social scientists
and legal theorists? On the
one hand, the legal theorists took it as a conceptual error and on the other
hand, advocates of neurosciences took it as a promising emerging field of
integration. Some scholars took an alternative route considering it as a
fascinating element of scientific discourse. The present article aims to show
that the coming of “brain language” in comparison to the other forensic
languages in the everyday legal discourse is not going to become a reality, as
truth inferred through the everyday experiences and the interpretations of
scientific knowledge by the judges. Scientific knowledge through the mapping of
active brain area by the available brain visualising techniques shows the
correlation between brain and behaviour and not the causation. So its use in
the legal domain seems less institutionalised, showing the determinism of the
brain as less authentic in itself when compared with the intuitive path
embedded in the culture and history. </p>
<p><b><i> </i></b></p>
Comparison of active brain area for wide and dense optode configurations using initial dip