The encounter between law and neuroscience has opened a profoundly reconfigured intellectual terrain -one in which the once-stable borders separating biological processes, moral agency, and juridical responsibility appear increasingly permeable (Greene Morse, 2006). What was long treated as a philosophical question about free will or intent now unfolds against the backdrop of brain scans, neural modulation techniques, and computational models capable of interpreting cognitive patterns (Scheleim, 2024). In this context, particularly as fMRI moves into real-world settings, there is a risk that neuroimages are treated as more conclusive than they are-taken as direct and definitive windows into the mind rather than as complex, interpretive data that require careful contextualization. As Schleim they must now be examined in light of technologies that can observe, influence, and potentially reshape the neural substrates of decision-making itself (UNESCO, 2022(UNESCO, , 2023;;Yuste et al, 2017).Artificial intelligence intensifies this transformation. As machine-learning systems are increasingly used to classify neural signals, predict behavioral tendencies, or assist in forensic evaluation (Tortora et al., 2020), the interpretation of brain data is no longer exclusively a clinical or judicial act but an algorithmic one. Artificial intelligence does more than process data; it selects patterns, assigns probabilistic weight, and frames what counts as relevant. In forensic neuroscience, this framing power can influence how neural evidence is interpreted before it reaches judicial reasoning. As research in deep learning has shown, these systems generate predictive architectures that shape how data are classified and how inferences are drawn (LeCun et al., 2015).Although neurolaw and neuroethics have carefully examined the implications of neuroscience for responsibility and rights (Farah, 2012), they have largely overlooked a decisive figure in this transformation: the victim. Neurovictimology emerges precisely to address this lacuna. The term was introduced in Spanish by García-López and colleagues in a conceptual formulation (García-López, Díaz y Ruiz, 2023),where it was proposed as an integrative framework uniting victimology, neuroscience, and forensic-legal analysis, from which neurovictimology emerges as the systematic study of the neural sequelae of victimization, encompassing structural and functional brain alterations and their emotional, cognitive, and behavioral correlates within defined environmental contexts. As an interdisciplinary field integrating empirical neuroscience and normative legal analysis, it examines how trauma, neural vulnerability, and neurotechnological exposure configure victimhood in both biological and juridical registers. Grounded in classical victimology, it extends inquiry beyond social and psychological determinants of harm to the neural substrates of memory, affect regulation, resilience, and testimonial competence.At its core, neurovictimology integrates three dimensions. Scientifically, it employs neuroimaging, psychophysiological assessment, and neurocognitive models to understand the cerebral impact of violence and coercion (Hinojosa et al, 2024). Legally, it scrutinizes the use-and potential misuse-of brain-based evidence within judicial proceedings (Aono et al, 2019;Farahany, 2015). Ethically, it examines whether these practices truly protect cognitive liberty, mental privacy, and personal identity (Ienca it can intensify existing vulnerabilities and generate forms of injustice that are technocratic, distributed, and difficult to contest precisely because they appear computationally objective (Benjamin, 2019). The concern is reinforced by evidence that brain development is shaped by parentification and chronic adversity (Schleim, 2025) affecting stress regulation, executive functioning, and emotional processing. When such developmentally patterned features are treated as isolated neural indicators within predictive systems, structural disadvantage risks being recoded as individual pathology.Thus understood, neurovictimology rests on two fundamental propositions: first, that brain-based evidence can illuminate the neurobiological impact of harm; and second, that neurotechnologies themselves can generate new forms of victimhood through intrusion into mental autonomy and integrity. By foregrounding these dynamics, neurovictimology invites the legal system to recognize that harm may occur not only through physical violence or social coercion, but through interventions-direct or mediated-within the neural substrate of the person. A neurovictimological framework also introduces a dimension that may complicate legal analysis: the neurofunctional substrates of resilience (Moreno-López et al, 2020). Some victims do not exhibit clinically detectable psychological sequelae but instead develop adaptive coping mechanisms that preserve functional capacity (van Rooij et al. (2024).This distinction may be understood in terms of differential neurobiological patterns, including predominant limbic dysregulation-commonly associated with depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder-versus stronger prefrontal cortical regulation, which underlies executive control, emotional modulation, and resilient adaptation.Neurotechnologies, once limited to research settings, now operate across commercial, military, and clinical domains. Their diffusion expands therapeutic possibilities while intensifying ethical exposure. The most acute risks implicate neurorights-mental privacy, cognitive freedom, and psychological continuity (Ligthart et al., 2023;García-López, Muñoz Ienca Herrera-Ferrá et al., 2025). In societies marked by economic disparity and institutional fragility, the deployment of neurotechnologies-often through public health or state-led initiatives-raises acute concerns about oversight and the protection of vulnerable groups.Chile's constitutional recognition of neurorights and emerging legislative efforts in Mexico illustrate normative leadership. Yet the convergence of neurotechnologies with artificial intelligence complicates the landscape. AI systems capable of interpreting or predicting neural states risk embedding bias, diffusing responsibility, and converting brain data into automated inputs for legal or administrative decisions.The challenge, therefore, is not merely to proclaim neurorights, but to operationalize them. Without enforceable forensic standards and algorithmic transparency, protections may remain aspirational, while those harmed by neurotechnological or AI-mediated misuse face limited practical remedies.Neurovictimology is not ancillary to victimology or neuroethics; it extends both by treating the brain as a locus and target of harm, compelling law and forensic practice to reassess injury, evidence, and protection in technologically mediated contexts (Greely, 2011).Its next phase must be operational. Clear conceptual and diagnostic criteria are needed to identify neurotechnological victimization, integrating neurobiological findings with disciplined psychological and contextual analysis. Standardized protocols should govern the collection, storage, and interpretation of neural data, aligned with emerging neurorights frameworks. Legal and mental-health professionals must be trained in the evidentiary limits and ethical risks of brain-based evidence, and regulatory coordination is necessary to avoid fragmentation.AI systems processing neural data must be auditable, bias-controlled, and tied to clear lines of responsibility; otherwise, algorithmic mediation risks obscuring error and diffusing accountability.At its core, neurovictimology is not about multiplying categories of victims. It is about recalibrating justice in a world where mental processes can be recorded, modeled, and potentially altered. If mental privacy and cognitive liberty are to stand alongside bodily integrity as foundational legal goods (Ienca & Andorno, 2017), then the protection of persons must extend to the neural substrate of agency itself.The true horizon of human rights is no longer only external conduct or physical restraint. It now reaches inward. Neurovictimology names that frontier-and insists that law arrives there before harm does.
García-López et al. (Thu,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: