The article Brains on Trial correlates with Dr. Ruben Gur's Lecture on Neuroscience being used in the courtroom. One idea that the article touches on is the fact that many criminals are having their punishments lessened with the help of Neuroscience in criminal law. But it simply depends on the extent of the actions done by the criminals, or the extent of brain damage.
Dr. Ruben Gur talked about a certain terrorist he had the experience of treating. By looking at the condition of his brain, Dr. Gur found that the patient may possibly be suffering from Schizophrenia, which may explain the behavior that was being observed. When Dr. Gur revealed his thoughts to the patient, he did not believe the doctor, and thought he was clearly insane. But the assumption turned to certainty, and the terrorist was put into a mental hospital for the remainder of his life.
This brings the question of whether or not someone deserves drastic punishments such as the death penalty, simply because "the brain is broken," as Dr. Ruben Gur implied. The article suggests that in rare cases, the brain's state is the actual factor that controls the inhumane behavior of a criminal. There are instances that allows people to defend themselves by implying that their brain made them do it. But this would only be true if the brain was subject to great degrees of insanity.
The actual question is, for any type of crime, is whether the tumor or any other brain damage caused the alteration in the person's behavior, or "release inhibitions that kept his existing desires in check?" This can not be entirely tested with a functional MRI.
No comments:
Post a Comment