David Eagleman, the author of the naive and self-serving op-ed piece The-human-brain-turning-our-minds-to-the-law.html thinks that
“A brain-based approach (to the legal system) can be more cost-effective, humane and successful. If we desire our medical treatments to be biologically informed, shouldn’t we demand the same from our courtrooms?”
Eagleman’s own brain, makes him assume that crimes are as unambiguously recognizable as are physical illnesses, and that they can therefore be treated as unambiguously as he thinks physical illnesses are treated. But illnesses, physical and mental, keep proliferating as committees of doctors and drug company executives refine and redefine them, and ineffective treatments often die out. (For example, there was a slew of tonsillectomies in the early part of the last century.)
As an undergraduate, according to his web page, Eagleman majored in European and American literature, and then turned to a PhD neuroscience, for which he now shills. He obviously never read Suddenly Last Summer or Orwell.
But you cannot hold him responsible for his opinions; his brain made him say them, without his consent.
For literate light relief, I recommend again this.