“Further, as we have seen in chapter 2, evidence from brain scans or other neurobiological tests does not ‘speak for itself’ – it must be spoken for. Images do not convince by means of their own intrinsic plausibility: interlocutors are required, and expert witnesses such as the clinicians who have requested and interpreted the brain scans of the accused must make the claim that the scan shows relevant anomalies”. (Abi-Rachad, Rose pp.178)

Neurolaw. Neuroethics. Neurocriminology. My mind projects a possible permutation a la Philip K. Dick. Imagine a future, where psychic mutations have led to a new kind of science – a new model – complete with its own questions of human ethics. Imagine, a clinician (government employed totalitarian style) analyzing the dreams of three coma-induced precognates – three oracle-gods whose powers must be harnessed for the ‘good’ of humankind. Imagine a world, where a crime can be seen before its inception (seemingly at least). Imagine this poor clinician, so set in the model of the current times, whose world is shaken to the core when he sees his own reflection, scryed in the mirror of the sleeping demiurges. Questions arise: Is he responsible for a crime he has not yet conceived. Does the medium and the image preemptively diagnosis criminal behavior and abnormality or does it call it in to being. Is this evidence inculpatory? Exculpatory? Psy-law. Psy-criminology. Psy-ethics? Are we playing God? Haven’t we always?