In my opinion, people with brain damage should not be entirely and legally responsible for their actions, yet they should be held accountable with lighter penalties or rehabilitation. Nothing can replace the truth when one commits an offense, therefore, it is reasonable for people to accept the responsibility for their actions even though they are suffering from brain diseases. Generally, brain injuries can affect people in negative ways such as causing dysfunction; “antisocial behavior, poor decision-making and lack of impulse control” (Why are lawyers using brain damage as a criminal defense? The science doesn’t support it). Imagine when you lose your temper, a normal person would need a certain amount of time to be aware of their actions
Unless it is extreme, you would not guess it. When most people met with the McKays, they said that they had no idea they suffered from disabilities. These injuries can affect a person in different ways that we do not understand. Sometimes even doctors struggle to understand brain injury, which can cause a lot of trouble for people who are suffering from TBI.
I intend to explore the effects of a parietal brain injury from the perspective of a neuropsychologist; ranging from types of tests that are employed when trying to determine the extent of the damage, to gaining an understanding of how this damage will affect the rest of the brain and/or the body. I will also explore the effects of a brain injury from the perspective of the family members, and their experiences with the changes that occur during the rehabilitation process. According to The Neuropsychology Center, “neuropsychological assessment is a systematic clinical diagnostic procedure used to determine the extent of any possible behavioral deficits following diagnosed or suspected brain injury”(www.neuropsych.com). As mentioned previously, a brain injury can be the result of many types of injuries or disorders, thus a broad range of assessment procedures have been developed to encompass these possibilities.
There is substantial scientific evidence that supports the argument for mitigation of blame when concerning psychopaths. Certainly the vast plethora of deficits causes some amount of impaired
“Not guilty by reason of insanity” (NGRI) has often perplexed even the most stringent of legal and psychiatric professionals for centuries. Moreover, it has transcended into the pop culture, as a “loophole”for the criminal society. However, the insanity defense is only used in less than 1% of criminal cases, and used successfully in only 10-25% of those cases (Torry and Billick, 2010). In order to successfully be acquitted by reason of insanity, the legal team, paired with psychiatric professionals, must prove that the defendant is not legally responsible for the crime, despite the evidence that they executed the crime. They must also prove that the defendant, was or is currently suffering from a mental disorder, and that the defendant have/had a impaired logical control of their actions (Smith, 2011). According to Torry and Billick (2010), “A criminal act must have two components: evil intent (mens rea, literally “guilt mind”) and action (actus reus, literally “guilty act”)” (p.225), thus the defendant must prove that he/she did not have “mens rea” or “actus reus.” Equally important to note, the act itself must be voluntary and conscious. The the majority of the psychological and judicial court system have a reluctance to hold defendants who lack the capability needed to understand “right from wrong” (Torry and Billick, 2010). It has been proven that over the course of many years, the NGRI have been difficult to apply. During the early 1980’s, many states modernized their NGRI defense and even abolished the defense altogether. Instead of allowing the the “not guilty by reason of insanity” defense, many states have established a verdict of “guilty but mentally ill” (GBMI) (Smith, 2011). In order to make sure that individuals w...
Children who suffer from Traumatic Brain Injury might suffer from learning disabilities as a result of their injury.
A concussion is a physical injury to the head resulting in altered mental function, with expectation of recovery within 2–3 weeks. In a significant minority of cases the symptoms persist longer, thereby comprising a symptom complex commonly referred to as the “post concussion syndrome”, that is, one or more somatic (for example, headaches, dizziness), cognitive (for example, poor concentration, memory), or behavioural/affective (for example, irritability, mood swings) symptoms. Unfortunately, the referral of a patient with the possibility of post concussion syndrome to a busy neurology outpatient clinic can precipitate an inward sigh of reluctant resignation in even the most diligent neurologist or neurosurgeon.
In “The Brain on Trial”, David Eagleman argues that the justice system needs to change due to advances in neuroscience. Eagleman uses a variety of rhetorical strategies to present his viewpoint. The most important one is his use of examples and reasoning. Therefore, by using mostly examples and reasoning, along with direct address to the readers, Eagleman is able to argue that the legal system has to modify its sentencing policies in accordance with advances in neuroscience due to the increase in the amount of accused and/or convicted people who have been found to have harbored some kind of brain disease or damage. In other words, their actions were not entirely voluntary.
Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is are complex and always have large degrees of symptoms. Traumatic brain injuries (TBI) also are the cause of many different disabilities. Each person is different and in every brain injury are different, bringing a devastating change into their lives on the day of the occurrence of the brain injury. The occurrence of brain injuries are wide spread into a large spectrum of different causes and there are different degrees of TBI.
The way in which liability is determined seems to be an irony in itself. The civil law requires people to act with reasonable care, meaning not hurting others or damaging property. Also it requires the defendant to do what a reasonable person would have done. (Cannell) However, my question is, if a person is not using a reasonable mind then isn’t that person insane or otherwise mentally handicapped?
Cognitive psychologists investigate processes using case studies of brain-damaged patients, these are then analysed to build models that represent normal cognitive processes. This essay will examine the contribution case studies have made to the development of cognitive neuropsychology as a discipline in its own right and draw attention to issues surrounding the use of brain damaged patients to infer cognitive functions and processes. At the same time, it will evaluate the contribution that case studies have made to our understanding of cognitive processes.
When Zackery Lystedt was “returned to play” after sustaining a first concussion, and then sustained a second (second-impact syndrome,) he would never be the same again. After being airlifted to a major medical facility in Seattle, this athlete woke to his new life as a brain injured individual: he could not walk, he could not speak, he could swallow—the star athlete of his football team would not walk more than twenty-steps until he turned eighteen-years of age (Washingtonjustice, 2014). It was not until the Zackery Lystedt law, did this idea become “controversial.” Since its implementation in Washington State, fueled much by the NFL--every state in the United States has adopted this version of the law, completed in 2010 (Adler & Giersch, 2014). Furthermore, if there is a suspicion of Head Injury, parents and coaches cannot return them to play (BIAWA, 2015). In WA only licensed practitioners trained in Brain Injury have the authority to return this child to play because if they suffer a second head injury after the first, they could die (BIAWA,
My objective in the long term is to provide therapeutic and counseling services that assist persons suffering with traumatic brain injury (TBI) or acquired brain injury (ABI) in coping and recovering from the mental illnesses that often accompany such tragedies. TBI/ABI has shown a proven link with “anxiety, depression, personality changes, aggression (National Alliance on Mental Illness Veterans Resource Center May 8, 2009 Traumatic Brain Injury)”, as well as many other issues. As the caregiver for a survivor of a rare and deadly strain of encephalitis, I have a personal perspective that I feel brings much to the discussion. I see the information I am currently gathering at Empire State College as the building blocks that pave the way to a thrilling career in a growing segment of the mental health industry. The CDC claims that approximately 1.4 million Americans suffer TBIs annually (Centers for Disease Control Injury Center May 30, 2007 Traumatic Brain Injury in the United States: Emergency Department Visits, Hospitalizations, and Deaths) and it has been called the “signature injury” of the current wars in Iraq & Afghanistan by the National Alliance on Mental Illness. As such, it is my belief that we need to focus time and energy on developing new programs to help these patients to cope with the new limitations and encourage rehabilitation and restoration.
Should the fear of brain trauma, change the rules of sports for good? Athletes have been susceptible for brain injuries since contact sports were invented. Although some are familiar with this, many people are unaware of the long term ramifications that often come with these types of injuries. Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, (ALS) is a disease that is slowly plaguing our nation, starting with athletes. It is one of the fatal repercussions of repetitive head trauma, that is often overlooked. CTE, also known as Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy is also a disease caused by head trauma that can drastically impact one’s life. CTE’s have a subset of different associated diseases such as Alzheimer's, Dementia, Parkinsons, and Huntingtons disease.
Criminal responsibility is the moral practice of holding an individual accountable for there crimes. This responsibility allows people who are found guilty of crimes to endure punishment or rehabilitation, which can vary in different countries and legal systems. This not only punishes and discourages crime but also allow people to see the tools of state power and the symbolic power that it has to show the community the consequences for the individual, at least when looking at serious criminal offences. This demand on individual responsibility also hold person to account for the conduct, and often society want a response that condemns remorse or regret for their actions and to reflect on their tort (Tadros, 2010). Although individual responsibility holds persons reasonable for crimes, there are certain circumstances which persons are exempt. For example, children under a certain age to not have the mental capacity of being responsible agents which refereed back to as the Latin term ‘doli incpax’, incapable of forming intent to commit a tort. In Queensland, the federal law surrounding criminal liability states that persons under the age of 14 are doli incapax (Australian Parliament, nd) This exemption can also be perceived with persons who have mental illness. These exemption are reasonable due to that some people are incapable of controlling or understanding their mental and physical actions, therefore providing reasonable outcomes for those don’t have mental guilt or physical capability to commit a crime (Australian law reform commission, 2015). This acknowledgment to those who don’t understand criminal wrongs in relation to Mens rea and Actus reas, caters to the society diversity and overall doesn’t make a person liable for a criminal act that they didn’t have the capacity to undertake.
There are two theories that justify punishment: retributivism according to which punishment ensures that justice is done, and utilitarianism which justifies punishment because it prevents further harm being done. The essence of defences is that those who do not freely choose to commit an offence should not be punished, especially in those cases where the defendant's actions are involuntary. All three of these defences concern mental abnormalities. Diminished responsibility is a partial statutory defence and a partial excuse. Insanity and automatism are excuses and defences of failure of proof. While automatism and diminished responsibility can only be raised by the defendant, insanity can be raised by the defence or the prosecution. It can be raised by the prosecution when the defendant pleads diminished responsibility or automatism. The defendant may also appeal against the insanity verdict. With insanity and diminished responsibility, the burden of proof is on the defendant. With automatism the burden of proof is on the prosecution and they must negate an automatism claim beyond reasonable doubt.