''Why blameworthiness is the wrong question'' is an informative article that exposes the reasons why the concept blameworthiness is the wrong word to ask in the legal argot. Eagleman proposes to replace the term with the word modifiability, which is a forward-looking term that will help build a social policy based on evidence. The relationship between human biology and the concept of free will, the reasons why blameworthiness is not the correct question and a forward-looking, brain-compatible legal system are the main points the author arguments on.
I. Human biology and the concept of free will.
Legal systems rest on the assumption that human beings have free will and are completely capable of making their own decisions. However, even though
…show more content…
I think that even when our acts are driven by an automated machinery - the brain, that should not be an excuse to exculpate us but instead an approach to find solutions.
II. Why blameworthiness is the wrong question.
Eagleman states that the question no longer makes sense because a person and its biology are now understood to be the same. There is no meaningful distinction between a person biology and its decision making. Therefore, they are inseparable. Instead, the question should point to finding a solution for whatever happened and not point to finding a guilty criminal. ''What do we do, moving forward, with an accused criminal?'' (Eagleman, 2011)
In my opinion, the author defends a good but also complex perspective. ''The criminal activity itself should be taken as evidence of brain abnormality'', says Eagleman, however, what about the percentage of criminals that are not carriers of the genes that contribute to performing violent crimes? Are they going to be sent to rehabilitation too and exonerated from incarceration even when there is proof of no brain
In this essay, I will argue that though Strawson’s Basic Argument is sound, society has constructed a more applicable version of the term “acting morally responsible” which holds us all accountable for our actions. Firstly, I will provide a brief overview of the Basic Argument as well as distinguish between Strawson’s and society’s definitions of being morally responsible. Secondly, I will justify Strawson’s first premise. Finally, I will raise and refute the response of author Ian McEwan. In short, Strawson’s Basic Argument proves that we cannot ultimately be morally responsible for what we do.
In “Luck Swallows Everything” and “Sanity and the Metaphysics of Responsibility” Galen Strawson and Susan Wolf’s explain the concept of responsibility in both a compatibilist and determinist view. Strawson argued that change was not possible at all when it comes to responsibility due to an individual’s mental nature, while Wolf argues that change is possible for an individual when it comes to responsibility. This essay will be focusing on the criticism of Wolf’s work.
This topic is crucial when considering the decision to penalize a criminal for a felony. Scientifically speaking, there is a difference between the brains of individuals, causing some people to be more aggressive than others. As Gazzaniga (2005) states in his book, "Whether through neurochemical imbalances or lesions, brain function can become distorted, perhaps explaining certain violent or criminal behavior" (p.89). If all people with such neurochemical imbalances displayed similar types of behavior, the conclusion would be obvious. However, not all people who have lesions or schizophrenia are violent. (Gazzaniga, 2005, p.95) An inconsistency in behavioral outcomes requires an alternate explanation of the concept of free will. Some philosophers criticize neuroscientists, arguing that, according to the article Neuroscience vs. Philosophy, "researchers have not quite grasped the concept that they say they are debunking" (Neuroscience vs. Philosophy: Taking an Aim at free will, 2011). In order to fully understand the concept of free will, it must be understood from synthesizing lessons from human experiences. Aristotle spoke of an internal moral compass that all humans possess; one that guides the concept of what is good (Eshleman, 2014, p.3). It becomes a necessity to compile the scientific perspective of a moral dilemma with the philosophical perspective in order to draw a reasonable
I agree with Strawson in saying that we are not truly morally responsible for what we do, in a mental respect at least. Though it suffers from many faults, there are also ways to even more clarify his argument, as I will hope to do so in the following. First off, Strawson states that for someone to be truly morally responsible, we have to understand the points that he has given. The first being that we do what we do because of the way we are. These just states that the things we do and decide are based upon how we are in that moment, in mental respects. For example, when it comes to choosing what to eat between options A or B, I will choose option A because of how I am. But if you were to choose, it would be dependent on the way that you are
Crime causation began to be a focus of study in the rapidly developing biological and behavioral sciences during the 19th century. Early biological theories proposed that criminal behavior is rooted in biology and based on inherited traits. Cesare Lombroso (1836-1909), an Italian army prison physician, coined the term “atavism” to describe “the nature of the criminal”...
Despite criminals becoming a ‘nuisance’ to society, Burgess argues that society can’t (physically or psychologically) alter abnormalities in an individual just so society can progress
Serial killers are defined to “be driven by instinct and desire to kill.” In a study done in 2000, Dr, Richard Davidson says, “people with a large amount of aggression – in particular people who have committed aggressive murders or have a social disorder – have almost no brain activity in the orbital frontal cortex or the anterior cingulated cortex while activity in the amyglade continued perfectly. The orbital frontal cortex and the anterior congulated cortex control emotional impulses while the amyglade controls reactions to fear.” Davidson concludes his research claiming that although environment can and will affect a serial killer’s thoughts, it is a killer’s genetic makeup that inevitably creates murderous thoughts.
These individuals often find themselves caught up in “maladaptive, self-defeating, aggressive, and criminal behavior” (Miller, 2012, p.71). The self-control theory of criminal behavior has identifiers that are closely related with frontal lobe impairments which can be contributed to cerebral dysfunctions as described
Many studies suggest that there are significant differences in the brain between individuals who possess antisocial personality disorder (psychopathy). While not all people who possess an antisocial personality disorder will become serial killers, every serial killer studied has an antisocial personality disorder; “Neuropsychological testing revealed abnormalities in all subjects tested” (Blake, Pincus, and Buckner 1642). Brain injury, brain abnormalities, or mental illness affects all the serial killers tested. Even if all serial killers had some type of abnormality in the brain, would that mean that they were doomed to become a serial killer? According to the experimental findings discussed in Neurologic Abnormalities in Murderers; 64.5% of serial killers have a frontal lobe dysfunction and 29% have temporal lobe abnormalities. The frontal lobes of the brain “control the essence of our human...
Biological theory is the concept that focuses on certain biological characteristics that are thought to be associated with an increased risk of engaging in criminal or deviant behavior (Bernard, Snipes & Gerould, 2010). Early biological theories tended to focus on the physical appearance as a distinguishing trait of criminals, whereas modern theories primarily argue that biology is one of many factors that contribute toward criminal behavior (Bernard, Snipes & Gerould, 2010). Early rape theorist included that of Johan Lavater, Fran’s...
In the eternal exploration into understanding the complex criminal mind, a multitude of theories, in the study of criminology, have flourished. Among these theories is the nature vs nurture debate, which suggest that criminal behavior is either genetically inherited or a consequence of environmental influence. These two views on criminal causation differ in many ways but they are not without their similarities. Through the earnest process of research in biological criminology, some theorists advocate that criminality is a predisposed defect. In the early study of this field, it was thought that physical appearance determined who would engage in criminal activity.
The brain is arguably the most complex part of a human being and is linked to motivations, feelings, and actions. Therefore, when actions of individuals differ from “normal” actions, the brain is brought into question. Repeat killers commit actions that are not “normal” when compared to the general public and therefore research on their brains has been conducted. When comparing scans of everyday citizens’ brains as opposed to the brain of a convicted serial killer, the differences are clear. The two scans differ widely with the prefrontal gray matter of the average person’s, dwarfing that of the murderer’s (Adams). Pr...
It is a fact that criminals have a smaller brains than law abiding citizens. Often, offenders share particular physical traits such as, being young males, muscular, having lower than average IQ, and a impulsive personality. Serial offenders are usually hyperactive and difficult children If a person has a low IQ, it is proven to be directly related to their tendency to be commit impulse actions that provide an immediate payoff. For instance, a rape or a mugging would provide a criminal with an immediate payoff. It is proven that crime often runs in families. In fact, chronic criminals are proven to be three times more likely to have criminal children. However, despite this information, scientists have no basis to come to any conclusions with this data. Therefore, one must consider other possible factors that may create a criminal mind, to come to a reasonable decision as to how one is developed.
These theories represent part of the classic psychological debate, nature versus nurture. Are individuals predisposed to becoming a criminal or are they made through their environment. There are various theories within the biological explanation as to why individuals commit criminal behaviour, these include: genetic theory, hereditary theory, psychosis and brain injury theory. In the next few paragraphs examples of each will be shown. The first theory to be explored is the hereditary theory, which stems from Cesare Lombroso (1876) father of criminology, (Feldman, 1993) whose studies were carried out by morphology.
Theories that are based on biological Factors and criminal behavior have always been slightly ludicrous to me. Biological theories place an excessive emphasis on the idea that individuals are “born badly” with little regard to the many other factors that play a part in this behavior. Criminal behavior may be learned throughout one’s life, but there is not sufficient evidence that proves crime is an inherited trait. In the Born to Be Bad article, Lanier describes the early belief of biological theories as distinctive predispositions that under particular conditions will cause an individual to commit criminal acts. (Lanier, p. 92) Biological criminologists are expected to study the “criminal” rather than the act itself. This goes as far as studying physical features, such as body type, eyes, and the shape or size of one’s head. “Since criminals were less developed, Lombroso felt they could be identified by physical stigmata, or visible physical abnormalities…characteristics as asymmetry of the face; supernumerary nipples, toes, or fingers; enormous jaws; handle-shaped or sensible ears; insensibility to pain; acute sight; and so on.” (Lanier. P. 94). It baffles me that physical features were ever considered a reliable explanation to criminal behavior. To compare one’s features to criminal behavior is not only stereotypical, but also highly unreliable.