4 ms·

The Brain, the Criminal and the Courts

26 points by laurex 7y ago

nabla9 7y ago
In many jurisdictions there is still this outdated reasoning based on M'Naghten rule from 1843: " as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing or, if he did know it, that he did not know what he was doing was wrong." If person knows that what he does is wrong and knows what he is doing, he is responsible. Damage into prefrontal cortex can radically change the ability to control impulses. Many violent acts are done by people with brain damage who know exactly what they do and they know it's wrong, but they have no choice at the moment of the crimes. One study examined 14 juveniles sentenced to death and found that all of them had suffered head trauma, most in car accidents but some by beatings. In adult death row inmates the number is also very high. Edit: found a review article: https://www.brainline.org/article/traumatic-brain-injury-prisons-review https://www.brainline.org/article/traumatic-brain-injury-pri...
- o09rdk 7y ago
  There is a huge disconnect between the state of criminal law regarding liability/culpability, and the state of neuroscience as a discipline, as well as between both of those things and reality. People in general have such trouble reasoning with issues surrounding Cartesian dualism, and understanding how behavior is mediated neurally.
- Meekro 7y ago
  In his dissent in Roper v Simmons, Justice Scalia gave a couple examples of brutal crimes committed by juveniles: "Defendant Christopher Simmons of this case, who was only seven months shy of his 18th birthday when he murdered Shirley Crook, described to his friends beforehand—in 'chilling, callous terms,' as the Kennedy majority opinion puts it—the murder he planned to commit. He and his 15—year—old accomplice then broke into the home of an innocent woman in the middle of the night, forced her from bed, walked her to a trestle spanning a river, 'hog—tied' her with duct tape and electrical wire, and threw her off a bridge alive and conscious. She drowned." "In Alabama, two 17—year—olds, one 16—year—old, and one 19—year—old picked up a female hitchhiker, threw bottles at her, and kicked and stomped her for approximately 30 minutes until she died. They then sexually assaulted her lifeless body and, when they were finished, threw her body off a cliff. They later returned to the crime scene to mutilate her corpse." In these cases, the problem is not impulse control but evil. I hope the courts never forget that evil exists.
  - kencausey 7y ago
    Evil does not exist. What does exist are errant mental states and antisocial impulses.
    - Fjolsvith 7y ago
      Two people don't share the exact same view of a tree.
    - MaxBarraclough 7y ago
      Presumably then you don't consider goodness to exist, either?
- dahfizz 7y ago
  One might make the argument that people unable to control violent impulses should be separated from society (jailed) just as much as someone with malicious intent. It depends on your view of the justice system. Is it punishment against the guilty? Is it protection for society? Is it rehabilitation for those who have lost their way? In reality, it's a mix of all of that. But regardless, I don't think we should allow a person to continue to commit violent acts against the innocent just because "it's not their fault". Maybe jail isn't the right answer, but something should still be done in that case. Maybe they should get shipped to a mental hospital with the rest of the so called "criminally insane"?
- Fjolsvith 7y ago
  Anecdotal experience of mine. I did time in prison and went through a treatment program. A significant number of other inmates in that program had experienced head injuries prior to their criminal act, self included. It was enough other people that I found it remarkable at the time. edit: I would also add that I don't consider that the injury gave the criminal no choice. I believe that it removed inhibitions that most people regularly experience.
- bgilroy26 7y ago
  The movie Anatomy of a Murder (Otto Preminger, Jimmy Stewart, 1959) attempted to publicize the "irresistible impulse" factor of the insanity defense
seren 7y ago
On the same subject, an older article from The Atlantic : The Brain on Trial [0], which mentions some extreme cases. Worth reading if you have the time. [0] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/07/the-brain-on-trial/308520/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/07/the-bra...

26 points by laurex 7y ago

In many jurisdictions there is still this outdated reasoning based on M'Naghten rule from 1843: " as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing or, if he did know it, that he did not know what he was doing was wrong." If person knows that what he does is wrong and knows what he is doing, he is responsible. Damage into prefrontal cortex can radically change the ability to control impulses. Many violent acts are done by people with brain damage who know exactly what they do and they know it's wrong, but they have no choice at the moment of the crimes. One study examined 14 juveniles sentenced to death and found that all of them had suffered head trauma, most in car accidents but some by beatings. In adult death row inmates the number is also very high. Edit: found a review article: https://www.brainline.org/article/traumatic-brain-injury-prisons-review https://www.brainline.org/article/traumatic-brain-injury-pri...

o09rdk 7y ago
There is a huge disconnect between the state of criminal law regarding liability/culpability, and the state of neuroscience as a discipline, as well as between both of those things and reality. People in general have such trouble reasoning with issues surrounding Cartesian dualism, and understanding how behavior is mediated neurally.
Meekro 7y ago
In his dissent in Roper v Simmons, Justice Scalia gave a couple examples of brutal crimes committed by juveniles: "Defendant Christopher Simmons of this case, who was only seven months shy of his 18th birthday when he murdered Shirley Crook, described to his friends beforehand—in 'chilling, callous terms,' as the Kennedy majority opinion puts it—the murder he planned to commit. He and his 15—year—old accomplice then broke into the home of an innocent woman in the middle of the night, forced her from bed, walked her to a trestle spanning a river, 'hog—tied' her with duct tape and electrical wire, and threw her off a bridge alive and conscious. She drowned." "In Alabama, two 17—year—olds, one 16—year—old, and one 19—year—old picked up a female hitchhiker, threw bottles at her, and kicked and stomped her for approximately 30 minutes until she died. They then sexually assaulted her lifeless body and, when they were finished, threw her body off a cliff. They later returned to the crime scene to mutilate her corpse." In these cases, the problem is not impulse control but evil. I hope the courts never forget that evil exists.
- kencausey 7y ago
  Evil does not exist. What does exist are errant mental states and antisocial impulses.
  - Fjolsvith 7y ago
    Two people don't share the exact same view of a tree.
  - MaxBarraclough 7y ago
    Presumably then you don't consider goodness to exist, either?
dahfizz 7y ago
One might make the argument that people unable to control violent impulses should be separated from society (jailed) just as much as someone with malicious intent. It depends on your view of the justice system. Is it punishment against the guilty? Is it protection for society? Is it rehabilitation for those who have lost their way? In reality, it's a mix of all of that. But regardless, I don't think we should allow a person to continue to commit violent acts against the innocent just because "it's not their fault". Maybe jail isn't the right answer, but something should still be done in that case. Maybe they should get shipped to a mental hospital with the rest of the so called "criminally insane"?
Fjolsvith 7y ago
Anecdotal experience of mine. I did time in prison and went through a treatment program. A significant number of other inmates in that program had experienced head injuries prior to their criminal act, self included. It was enough other people that I found it remarkable at the time. edit: I would also add that I don't consider that the injury gave the criminal no choice. I believe that it removed inhibitions that most people regularly experience.
bgilroy26 7y ago
The movie Anatomy of a Murder (Otto Preminger, Jimmy Stewart, 1959) attempted to publicize the "irresistible impulse" factor of the insanity defense

seren 7y ago

On the same subject, an older article from The Atlantic : The Brain on Trial [0], which mentions some extreme cases. Worth reading if you have the time. [0] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/07/the-brain-on-trial/308520/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/07/the-bra...