Why did they have 2 psychologists, a forensic psychiatrist, and a lawyer, and no neuroscientists?

My opinion is that psychologists are at fault for some of the most grievous miscarriages of justice, because they act out of an educated faith, as opposed to relying entirely on fact. The mathematics of the brain are so complicated that there is literally no way to predict an individual act or behaviour. It would be like saying that because clouds form tornadoes, that clouds want to kill someone. It may happen, but using satellites to measure the cloud formation to try and figure out if it was going to kill someone is just pointless. Even if you do find a tornado generating cloud, it might not be near anyone.

So on the concept of predisposition toward crime, we would be genetically or physically profiling, which is a) not always accurate and b) goes against the principle of equality.

If we look at the other side of the argument, determinism, then we get marred down in an argument about the concept of being able to commit a crime, way before we get drawn into blaming people and their brains. The morality of man is relegated to the play that society is acting out, but in practice nothing should change. Determinism or not, prisons will exist.

So is neuroscience useful to law, not really. Will it be used in convictions, most likely.

I've heard talks of people considering the use of fMRI in criminal trials as a sort of glorified lie-detector.
This disturbs me far, far more than I can even begin to explain. Two quick reasons this is a shit idea: 1) fMRI has rather poor temporal resolution, and 2) fMRI data is, by definition, correlational, and should therefore never be used as standalone proof of **anything.**