Neuroscience and Law

We all admit our actions and behaviors are influenced by our environment and genetics to some extent, however no one is sure how dramatically. Everyone reading this is aware on some level that small molecules in the brain are the driving force behind behavior. Think of the last time you ingested your favorite version of ethanol (beer, wine or liquor), seen a personality shift of a friend on depression medication or even someone "out of their mind" on illegal drugs. All of these behavior changes are a direct result of changes to the small molecules in the brain we call neurotransmitters (Eagleman). From a neuroscientific perspective, most people underestimate how much of their actualized behavior is a result of unconscious processes they are unaware of (Harris).The choice to pick up your right or left hand in experiments can be predicted 5-7 seconds before the participant in the experiment "decided" on which hand. It follows that with better science it is possible for humans to trace all intentions back to genetic and environmental influences present throughout a person's lifetime. In this sense, I believe there needs to be drastic change in the way we view and enact penal systems.

Not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect is an affirmative criminal defense that claims a person is not responsible for their actions because their biology made them incapable of reason at the time he/she committed a crime. As it stands essentially all crimes could be considered insane by some neurological perspective. The story of Charles Whitman is a case where an anatomical deformity caused a normal kind-hearted man to become a murderer. After killing his wife and mother, Whitman began shooting others from a clock tower on the University of Texas, Austin campus. An autopsy later showed that a pecan sized tumor pressing on parts of his brain, made him incapable of controlling his emotions or actions. In a suicide note, he wrote that he did not know why he was doing these horrific acts, as he loved his wife and mother but could not control the impulse to hurt them. Something about the Charles Whitman case crystallizes the notion to look at his criminal actions from a neurological perspective, however I think the principle can apply more broadly to all criminal proceedings (Harris).

Every action has a reaction. Taking another perspective that means every event results from a precursor. The same is true in neuroscience, every chemical flowing through your brain results from prior events which in turn are from other prior events, you can roll back the clock as far as you like. A mistake you made in your twenties, the A you got in a high school class that propelled you into your career field, childhood trauma all play a factor in every decision you make, regardless of whether you are consciously aware of it or not.

I implore anyone to show me a life lived without some sort of "defects" in his/her life, either genetic or environmental. As I described in the previous paragraph all decisions are based on all prior decisions, genetics and environmental causes. If that holds true, technically all crimes are caused by mental disease or defect. Because every decision is hinged on all prior decisions, just one decision being atypically sociopathic or psychopathic would deem the downstream decision, i.e. criminal action, to be caused by disease or defect of mental processes. In the case of an anatomical malfunction there is no doubt, the criminal suffering from that affliction should be handled in a different manner. In cases where emotional disease causes the criminal behavior, I don't think this is the majority opinion. However I think it needs to be examined. If a case of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) can reduce a sentence based on mitigating factors, what's to say that a lesser but still significantly causal link to misbehavior like depression shouldn't also be considered. Here we come to an extremely grey area and not one where I claim to know where to draw the line. Because of the continuous nature of brain function perhaps there is no line to be drawn.

This is not to say we should not punish crime. We must do something to prevent murder and rape but I am reminded of Hammurabi Code, the punishment must fit the crime. In fact the idea of insanity defense can also be traced back to the Code of the Hammurabi (King).If we can find an anatomical cause of criminal behavior, fixing the legion would obviously be the first and best step for everyone involved. If a horrific environment while maturing as an adolescent causes a young man to hurt others, addressing that issue from a psychiatric point of view is the another obvious course of action. As it stands the legal system works off the assumption that humans are practical reasoners and that we all can apply reason equally (Eagleman). Modern neuroscience is revealing that these assumptions are most likely untrue. David Eagleman points out it there seems to be a range of culpability that moves with the pace of technology. In the 1950's only cases of severe psychosis were eligible to use an insanity defense, compared to today where even temporary states of mind can be argued in that manner. Eagleman also asserts that punishments based on the chance of recidivism are and will continue to be the most effective for society. Unfortunately the justice system, as well as the current capabilities of neuroscience, do not allow tailored punishments from this neurological perspective in the current state of affairs. However with continuation of scientific research of fMRI, Connectomics and other areas of brain mapping, future technologies will make our current ways of viewing the brain look as silly as someone using a slide rule in 2015. One day we will be able to use those tools in conjunction with a more rational view of criminal behavior to create a more fair and effective justice system.

references