Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Law, Brains, and Behavior
Doug Berman tipped me off to a fascinating development at the Baylor College of Medicine-- they have started an Initiative on Law, Brains, and Behavior, with the goal of hosting a major conference in the Fall of 2008. The official web site reveals that the point of this initiative is to address "how new discoveries in neuroscience should navigate the way we make laws, punish criminals, and develop rehabilitation. The project brings together a unique collaboration of neurobiologists, legal scholars, ethicists, medical humanists, and policy makers, with the goal of running experiments that will result in modern, evidence-based policy....Emerging questions at the interface of law and neuroscience include: Is it a legitimate defense to claim that a brain tumor ‘made you do it’? Do the brains of minors have the same decision-making and impulse control as adult brains – and how does that change punishment? Can novel technologies such as brain imaging be leveraged for rehabilitation? How should juries assess responsibility, given that most behaviors are driven by systems of the brain that we cannot control?"
These are fascinating issues, and this is exactly the type of interdisciplinary collaboration a field like criminal law needs. Practitioners like myself talk about (for example) how a juvenile evaluates risk differently than an adult would, but we don't really know in a medical sense how that works. It's time to find out.
Comments:
<< Home
This sounds like a good idea to explore….So, what if we find out that brain tumors (or any other physiological cause) make men rape women or teachers have sex with their students or makes people kill other people? Then we are left with quite a quandary: Since no one’s mind would be actually responsible for their body’s actions, how do we keep them from harming society? I frankly don't care what makes people do bad things. If they can be fixed, fine, fix them. (Recidivism, pedophilia, and re-commission of the same type of crime after release, rates might suggest that we don’t even know how to do that very well.) If they can't be fixed then lock them away. They cannot be trusted to interact with a civil society and it really doesn't matter why.
We have laws to moderate behavior so that we can all survive in society with one another. We all willingly agree to give up certain behaviors (like ignoring red lights at busy intersections) that are harmful to society so that we all can be better off. We have spent 13000 years developing the ability as humans to live in society with one another. We don’t do it very well, but we have learned at least one thing: Anarchy does not advance civilization. I’m not sure that by providing some false sense of legitimacy to the reasons and motivations for what is essentially anarchy we help ourselves.
To the extent we can recognize what causes people to do bad things, and we can use that knowledge to alter how we teach or raise our children, or, punish anti-social behavior more efficaciously, or even provide non-voluntary medical intervention that would permanently fix the behavior, these are “good” things. Enabling Big Brother to intrude into our personal space and decisions because there is a proactive reason for it to do so (for the good of society, of course) is not necessarily a good thing. And, in our society, this becomes a judgment call enabled by the will of the majority. (One could certainly argue here that big money, advertising, and politics all have more influence than the will of the people, but that is another discussion.)
To provide excuses for people that do not know how to behave within this societal framework is not a good thing. I am afraid that we might not know how to deal with what we will learn. Grappling with the problem is a good as long as we realize that we are hanging our hat on just one horn of the dilemma. Living with the result might not be so good.
I would suggest that this “unique collaboration of neurobiologists, legal scholars, ethicists, medical humanists, and policy makers,” might not paint the whole picture. Why not include a few of society’s violent crime victims as invitees. Their perspective will most certainly take the blush off the rose colored glasses that most academics and politicians wear and their contribution would be just as valid, if not more so.
We have laws to moderate behavior so that we can all survive in society with one another. We all willingly agree to give up certain behaviors (like ignoring red lights at busy intersections) that are harmful to society so that we all can be better off. We have spent 13000 years developing the ability as humans to live in society with one another. We don’t do it very well, but we have learned at least one thing: Anarchy does not advance civilization. I’m not sure that by providing some false sense of legitimacy to the reasons and motivations for what is essentially anarchy we help ourselves.
To the extent we can recognize what causes people to do bad things, and we can use that knowledge to alter how we teach or raise our children, or, punish anti-social behavior more efficaciously, or even provide non-voluntary medical intervention that would permanently fix the behavior, these are “good” things. Enabling Big Brother to intrude into our personal space and decisions because there is a proactive reason for it to do so (for the good of society, of course) is not necessarily a good thing. And, in our society, this becomes a judgment call enabled by the will of the majority. (One could certainly argue here that big money, advertising, and politics all have more influence than the will of the people, but that is another discussion.)
To provide excuses for people that do not know how to behave within this societal framework is not a good thing. I am afraid that we might not know how to deal with what we will learn. Grappling with the problem is a good as long as we realize that we are hanging our hat on just one horn of the dilemma. Living with the result might not be so good.
I would suggest that this “unique collaboration of neurobiologists, legal scholars, ethicists, medical humanists, and policy makers,” might not paint the whole picture. Why not include a few of society’s violent crime victims as invitees. Their perspective will most certainly take the blush off the rose colored glasses that most academics and politicians wear and their contribution would be just as valid, if not more so.
# posted by 
: 12:26 PM
: 12:26 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3131738
Baylor hires former UH coach Art Briles.
Baylor hires former UH coach Art Briles.
# posted by : 1:37 PM
: 1:37 PM 
There is a center at UVA Law School on mental health/law/public policy. Somewhat similar idea. They've looked at the phenomenon of prisons serving as the surrogate for mental hospitals, since the de-institutionalization of mental patients in the '80s . . . and of course the intersection of mental illness and crime, and punishment . . . important things to consider.
# posted by : 4:50 PM
: 4:50 PM
Yeah, I love Dr. Who as well. But how does the picture relate to the post again?
Post a Comment
# posted by : 6:29 PM
: 6:29 PM << Home
