The current discussion in class is Mens Rea. The concept of a guilty mind is one of the cornerstones of our criminal justice system. Mens rea accounts for free will; in essence, man is responsible for his actions because he chooses them. While it is not always so simple, crimes are punished, in part, based on the levels of intent.
Aside from the usual issues of general/specific intent and scenarios involving intoxication, modern neuroscience is changing the way we look at human behavior, and thus, how we should punish wrong doing. This article in the New York Times magazine discusses some of the impact of brain-monitoring technology on the judicial process.
Generally speaking, there are two issues with using such technology. First, should we allow biological deficiencies as a defense against crimes? Second, should we use this technology to "predict" who is more likely to commit crimes? The article does a good job covering these issues, but I'd like to discuss a couple points in regards to the concept of mens rea in criminal law.
Under the Model Penal Code, there are generally no strict liability crimes. A crime always requires some guilty mind. This means having one of four mental states: purpose, knowledge, recklessness, or negligence. If a defendant has a growth on his prefrontal cortex that causes him to act in a way that is criminal, should we hold him accountable? Perhaps he knows the difference between right and wrong, yet still pushes someone down a flight of stairs. With fMRI scans, among others, we can establish that the growth may cause anger or rage in response to certain stimuli. How would punishing the individual meet our purposes of punishment? While the goal of incapacitation would be met, we cannot "deter" an individual whose brain makes him commit a crime, and without surgery (and perhaps even with it) we cannot "reform" the individual. Yet a brain growth doesn't necessarily make one "insane" by our definitions. Further, wouldn't taking scans of a suspect's brain to determine their guilt in a crime be a violation of the ban on self-incrimination?
A striking second problem is that of holding individuals accountable for their predispositions. Let us suppose that we know that a growth in a particular area makes a person 1000x more likely to lose control of their rage and kill a person. Would it be fair to lock them up without an actus reus? If we punished thoughts, no man would be free. It leads to imagining horrible futures like that in Minority Report (don't get me started on how wrong punishing "precrime" would be).
I prefer the antiquated concept of free will. But modern science seems to be coming closer and closer to proving that free will is nothing but a combination of chemicals mixing in the right proportions at the right moments. In that sense, are any of us free at all?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
i agree with the free will theory myself. i really believe in personal accountability.
i think that part of the struggle here is that with a large religious population, science is deeply involved in the creation vs. evolution debate. i think that science feels like it's falling behind when it can't explain every single thing in the world. here, religion can say something like "god willed A to do action X." if scientists argue there's free will, then a significant population (let's call them non-thinkers or poor thinkers) will sit there and say "well, religion has an answer, but science does not."
lots of people say that true science isn't run this way as a battle against religion. but with all the crazy creationist theories out there (which can just be thought up then presented, as opposed to science which must be proven thru specific processes to be considered valid) i think some scientists do feel some pressure to explain everything.
but i think when it comes down to it, you can't blame chemicals inside your head for the fact you shot someone. you're responsible for the chemicals, and for controlling them to some degree. if humans couldn't control themselves, we sure wouldn't have made it this far.
Your first question about responsibility is a good one. Neuroscience as well as genetics will help in determining why a person may have poor impulse control (which is a leading line of research these days). However, numerous studies show that poor impulse control does not remove responsibility. For instance, using a genetic example, there is a specific gene implicated in some obesity cases. But predisposition does not cause obesity, it is one factor in many. So saying my genes make me eat fast food is attempting to divest oneself of responsibility and that does not work. The evidence? There are numerous people who have the deviant gene who are not obese. It's the same arguments people used with the XYY issue. There is no correlation to the incidence of XYY and the male prison population even though XYY males are more aggressive. But aggression can be positive or negative. To get to the point, each case that attempts to use a neuroscience defense will be different. Certain brain tumors cause major personality shifts and can, in themselves, cause violence. I do believe in cases like these, the responsibility issue is voided.
As for the second question, I didn't think that the purpose of law had anything to do with predisposition? That's pretty much eugenics. We are getting better in genetics and neuroscience, but we may never reach a point where we can predetermine anything. This is where science education really needs to be strengthened, especially in legal fields. The creation of a human from scratch involves too many complex biochemical pathways. Genes can zip when they are programmed to zag. And there is enough evidence now that a portion of any human's personality is nurture, not nature. Added to this is the idea that prenatal care may exert a huge influence and another factor enters the equation.
Post a Comment