Sunday, October 12, 2014

Should Neuroscience Inform Criminology?

Michael Shermer presents a synopsis of a book by University of Pennsylvania criminologist and psychiatrist Adrian Raine, who attempts to answer questions about what makes a criminal mind and related questions in his book The Anatomy of Violence: The Biological Roots of Crime. The link to the Scientific American essay can be found at:

Searching for the True Sources of Crime, Where neuroscience meets criminology: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/searching-for-true-sources-crime/

This article makes me question if our criminal justice system acts in our society's best interests. Related questions include the meaning of free will when physical trauma to the brain can make someone a criminal; the morality of taking preventative measures if someone is determined to be likely to commit a crime; and, if science can be used as a tool to define morality.

All are encouraged to share links to resources that shed light on these issues.  Use the "comments" link below to do so.

7 comments:

  1. I'll start the ball rolling with a comment. The criminal just system is tasked with, (1) deterrence through the threat of punishment, (2) retribution, (3) incapacitating offenders to protect the innocent; and (4) Rehabilitation. Based on crime statistics, the US fails on all counts. The huge prison population suggests that the threat of lengthy prison sentences is not a good deterrent; many punishable crimes are victimless so retribution is not part of the picture; the innocent are no safer having such individuals locked up; and, rehabilitation does not seem to be a priority. Long sentences make released prisoners unable to integrate back into society and many therefore become repeat offenders. We are locking up our citizens for breaking laws that make no sense, thus turning people into criminals for no good reason. Why are we not up in arms about this?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The legal question posed by the author about treating criminals differently if they have a clear damage to the prefrontal cortex is complicated. Human beings possess consciousness which allows them to identify what actions are good or bad. Hence, people despite of having some brain damage can still perceive whether or not their actions harm other people. I was trying to think about some counterexamples, people that have a clear damage to the prefrontal cortex but they have never committed a crime.
      It seems, from the reading, that there exists a relationship between experiencing abuse and violence and becoming an abuser. However, there are several examples of people who have had a very dramatic and traumatic childhood and were able to transform all those negative experiences in something good.
      You will certainly have a very nice discussion tomorrow!

      Delete
    2. Perceiving that you are hurting someone and caring are two different issues. If caring is a brain function, and that part of the brain is impaired, then you will loose that quality.

      Delete
  2. That is a good point, but even if the subject does not care he/she is aware about the social convention of right and wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Being aware of the social convention may not stop someone from action if that part of the brain that imposes constraint is not functioning.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'll just leave this here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.1219

    "Consciousness is how information 'feels' when being processed"

    This is a recent addition to work done by a physicist at MIT regarding the nature of consciousness that may have some bearing on the discussion of "fault", "choice" and "punishment" if all we are is sufficiently complex computers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This paper is so incredibly interesting, deep, and insightful! I have added it to the resource tab.

      Delete