Brain scans as evidence?

Morrigoon · 11-05-2007, 12:51 PM

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21552376/

I thought this would spark some interesting conversation. It seems the line of intention, or responsibility for crime, is getting fuzzier.

My $0.02:
With regard to the case mentioned near the end of the article, I think if the guy took illegal drugs in the first place, then it shouldn't matter if it impaired his ability to think rationally, he's still guilty of his crimes, IMHO.

Alex · 11-05-2007, 01:57 PM

L&O tackled it a couple years ago in an episode where a teacher developed a brain tumor causing uncontrollable promiscuity (which involved the law since kids were the nearest thing around).

The way I see it:

1. All behavior eventually boils down to chemistry so to some extent or another you can absolve anybody of fault. If they aren't at "fault" then is it fair to punish them.

2. However, if they aren't at fault but are merely hapless victims of bad brain chemistry then there is no rational reason for accepting any assumption that they'll choose not to do it again. Also, the rehabilitation ideal of incarceration goes away. So it could be argued that in the absense of "free will" the need to incarcerate those who show a tendency towards antisocial crimes becomes stronger, not weaker.

3. The side you choose will likely (and entirely coincidentally) match what you've already decided the role and value of incarceration is (protection vs. rehabilitation).

alphabassettgrrl · 11-05-2007, 03:11 PM

Alex, your #3 is right on.

Personally my initial reaction is either you did it and you're guilty, or you can't control your behavior and need to be locked away somewhere (though prison may not be the best place to do so). If you are claiming not guilty because you took drugs, at some point you were rational and took the drugs. Still guilty.

Have to think more about the brain-tumor/physical abnormality thing. That won't be detected until they do something, which is rather too late. Probably still have to come down on the "if you can't control it you need to be locked away" side. My model is Montana's policy on "not guilty by reason of insanity" - you spend your time in a psych hospital until you are fit to stand trial. Kind of harsh, but we can't set a precedent for people to claim abnormalities and feel free to commit crimes.

Still requires much more thought to find a good way to punish the truly guilty while not catching those with a problem that can be solved.

11-05-2007, 12:51 PM	#1
Morrigoon I throw stones at houses Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Location: Location Posts: 9,534	Brain scans as evidence? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21552376/ I thought this would spark some interesting conversation. It seems the line of intention, or responsibility for crime, is getting fuzzier. My $0.02: With regard to the case mentioned near the end of the article, I think if the guy took illegal drugs in the first place, then it shouldn't matter if it impaired his ability to think rationally, he's still guilty of his crimes, IMHO. __________________ http://bash.org/?top "It is useless for sheep to pass a resolution in favor of vegetarianism while wolves remain of a different opinion." -- William Randolph Inge
	Submit to Quotes

11-05-2007, 01:57 PM	#2
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	L&O tackled it a couple years ago in an episode where a teacher developed a brain tumor causing uncontrollable promiscuity (which involved the law since kids were the nearest thing around). The way I see it: 1. All behavior eventually boils down to chemistry so to some extent or another you can absolve anybody of fault. If they aren't at "fault" then is it fair to punish them. 2. However, if they aren't at fault but are merely hapless victims of bad brain chemistry then there is no rational reason for accepting any assumption that they'll choose not to do it again. Also, the rehabilitation ideal of incarceration goes away. So it could be argued that in the absense of "free will" the need to incarcerate those who show a tendency towards antisocial crimes becomes stronger, not weaker. 3. The side you choose will likely (and entirely coincidentally) match what you've already decided the role and value of incarceration is (protection vs. rehabilitation).
	Submit to Quotes

11-05-2007, 03:11 PM	#3
alphabassettgrrl Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,978	Alex, your #3 is right on. Personally my initial reaction is either you did it and you're guilty, or you can't control your behavior and need to be locked away somewhere (though prison may not be the best place to do so). If you are claiming not guilty because you took drugs, at some point you were rational and took the drugs. Still guilty. Have to think more about the brain-tumor/physical abnormality thing. That won't be detected until they do something, which is rather too late. Probably still have to come down on the "if you can't control it you need to be locked away" side. My model is Montana's policy on "not guilty by reason of insanity" - you spend your time in a psych hospital until you are fit to stand trial. Kind of harsh, but we can't set a precedent for people to claim abnormalities and feel free to commit crimes. Still requires much more thought to find a good way to punish the truly guilty while not catching those with a problem that can be solved. __________________ Why cycling? Anything [sport] that had to do with a ball, I wasn't very good at. -Lance Armstrong
	Submit to Quotes