Neurolaw is fast emerging on the scholarly and legal scene. As neuroscience findings receive more attention and incorporation into the legal system, a critical yet unexplored question is: How will neuroscience-based explanations for behavior affect public support for change in the criminal justice system? Public support for criminal law reform will be heavily influenced by the ways in which the issue is framed, and which framing (amongst different and potentially conflicting views) citizens choose to adopt. Recognizing the central role that issue framing plays in the formation of public opinion, this study examines the influence of neuroscience-based explanations of behavior on public support for legislative changes in the criminal justice system. We investigate how citizens respond when they are presented with multiple, often contradictory frames. This marks the first research to date examining how individuals react to contrasting arguments about the influence that neuroscience should have on the legal system. The results of two large web-based experiments, as well as a nationally representative phone experiment, in which participants were presented with either a positive or negative frame before reading a neutral neuroscience study, suggest that, controlling for a host of individual demographics, the framing of neurolaw, and the way in which it interacts with political identification, is influential with regard to policy support, voting intentions, and case-level punishment decisions. Specifically, whereas a positive framing of the potential for neuroscience to influence the law (e.g., reduce violent crimes) does not result in different reactions based on political ideology, a negative framing (e.g., criminals will not be held responsible for their actions) makes conservatives less supportive of legal reforms based on neuroscience, less likely to vote for a judge who endorses such reforms, and advocate more punishment of an offender. And, we found that this judgment was driven by conservatives more negative view of the offender, thus elevating how punishment-worthy he was.