Descartes Dualism

As neuroscience experts continue to research the biological bases of behavior, the evidence from such studies is increasingly employed in the courtroom, igniting debates over whether criminals with neurophysiological deficits should be held accountable for their actions. The debate also calls to question the idea of free will, as experts are unsure of the relevance of Descartes’ concept of dualism, in which the immaterial mind is separate and independent of the physical body. Though this concept was initially rejected by neuroscientists, it may be useful to consider Descartes’ thoughts when attempting to separate the mind and body, if such a thing can even be done. Such difficult conundrums plague the modern scientific and legal systems, but

Nita Farahany of Duke University conducted a study on the use of neuroscientific evidence in the courtroom, recognizing the rapidly developing trend of using this evidence to absolve a defendant of punishment. She found that between 2005 and 2012, the number of cases citing neuroscientific evidence, including everything from scientific brain scans to general claims about the state of one’s brain, more than doubled. In cases that employed this type of evidence, defendants received a lesser penalty 20 to 30% of the time. In these cases, neuroscientific findings, which are based on repeated studies of a large sample of people, are being mistakenly narrowed to only one person in the context of a case. Perhaps the most important idea underlying this potential misapplication of evidence is the difference between

In an idealistic situation, there would be a perfect middle road which would balance science and law, but such a path does not yet exist. Francis Shen of the University of Minnesota asserts that more advanced brain scans designed to identify schizophrenia and other mental ailments would offer beneficial clinical and legal applications. Building off this analysis, I believe that until the tools to identify brain abnormalities are significantly more reliable, legal systems should not put weight on such fragments of scientific evidence. Moreover, future recidivism presents ethical problems. For example, the Mind Research Network tested prisoners in Albuquerque before they were released and found that lower amounts of activity in the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) during a rapid decision-making activity was correlated with a greater likelihood of being rearrested. If this information is accepted as universally true, people with comparatively low ACC activity could be confined to prison because of an unfounded fear that they may do something illegal in the future. An alternative course of action in which these findings are acknowledged but the ex-convicts are still released appears to be the only present solution, as these findings have yet to be proven reliable and