While moral capacity surely exists, it is a normative question. Behavioral experts are not experts in normative questions. They are scientists, and as such, approach the world from a scientific perspective which inevitably entails explanations for observed phenomena. Simply saying "he's guilty because he did it with a depraved heart" doesn't provide a satisfying scientific answer. It tells us little about the motives that led a person to commit crime X. That is why behavioral experts seem so invested in understanding all possible circumstances behind a defendant's behavior. Was he abused as a child? A history of drug abuse? Mentally ill? These are possible explanations. The problem is that the law isn't really interested in these explanations. Instead, our criminal code operates almost entirely on a culpability paradigm. Thus, experts have a difficult time answering legal questions of right and wrong because that's not their territory even though the law, de facto , wants experts to offer such opinions. The mistake lies in the analytical error that an explanation must mean mitigation or exculpation. Of course, law is not alone in this indictment. Science has increasingly thrown commonsense out the window with the increasing array of "addictions" and claims that psychopathic behavior is biologically determined. Such claims cloud an already difficult normative realm where biological explanations are becoming the new moral force in our laws and culture.