It has been suggested that neuroenhancements could be used to improve
the abilities of criminal justice authorities. Judges could be made more
able to make adequately informed and unbiased decisions, for example.
Yet, while such a prospect appears appealing, the views of neuroenhanced
criminal justice authorities could also be alien to the unenhanced
public. This could compromise the legitimacy and functioning of the
criminal justice system. In this article, I assess possible solutions to
this problem. I maintain that none of them qualifies as a satisfactory
general solution to it, a solution that could reasonably be taken to
solve the problem or to suffice for dealing with it in at least most
cases. Yet I also suggest that, depending on contingent empirical
circumstances, the responses – either singly or together – can sometimes
amount to a sufficient answer to it.