HQ

David Eagelman's suggestion that judicial systems should be re-organized to reflect known environmental and physical conditions that diminish the responsibility of criminals for their actions has been on my mind lately. I wrote about it a few years ago ( here ). The basic story is as follows: A man is convicted of pedophilia discovers that he has a brain tumor. The tumor is removed and the man says he no longer has any impulses for pedophilia. After his release he forms a normal life until he begins to feel the return of his impulses. He goes to the doctor and discovers that the tumor has returned. The story shows us that conditions that are not up to the person are determining actions that are criminal. Since the man bears no responsibility for his tumor it follows that he bears no responsibility for his criminal actions.  The implication  of the story is that conditions should play a greater role in criminal justice. Being brought up in certain conditions, envi...

Much public debate, especially in the area of ethics, is being fueled by new work in neuroscience. Scientists are now able to analyze the “lighting storm” which occurs in our brains whenever we move an arm, react to an event or feel the urge to eat. One part of this research suggests that many decisions are taken due to unconscious reasons. A criminal might, for example, be responding to an urge that is below their consciousness; they are not aware of it. The same neuroscience contests that these mechanisms are a result of both the genetic pre-disposition and the environment the person inherits. These are the primary causes leading to a state of being which in turn leads to an action, a crime perhaps. Of course, this line of thought has ramifications for the criminal justice system. Should judges be guided by evidence provided by neuroscience when passing judgment? David Eagleman thinks they should. He suggests that this could lead to a system based less on culpability (since free wi...