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.
Eagleman uses examples of cases and diseases
…show more content…
to prove that there have been convicted people who didn’t act on the basis of free will. In other words, they did not choose to commit the crimes that they were convicted for or accused of. One of the examples he uses is the story of a man named Charles Whitman. In 1966, Whitman murdered his mother and wife and shot people from the observation deck, located on the top floor of the University of Texas Tower in Austin. Whitman could not personally pinpoint any motive for committing those horrid crimes. He even suspected that something was seriously wrong with his brain. When his body was inspected, it was discovered that Whitman had suffered from a tumor, known as glioblastoma, had grown from beneath his thalamus, affected his hypothalamus and compressed his amygdala. The amygdala controls emotional regulation and damage to this region results in social and emotional disturbances. Another example Eagleman uses is that of a man named Alex, who harbored a massive tumor in the orbitofrontal cortex. This tumor resulted in pedophilic behavior, which was ended by its removal. Eagleman also uses examples of diseases such as Parkinson’s and Tourette syndrome to demonstrate that people who act in socially undesirable ways or commit crimes are not entirely blameworthy for their actions and therefore, should not be treated as if they could have refrained from these behaviors. Throughout the entire essay, Eagleman challenges the idea that free will exists.
In fact, he states that the legal system has been operating under the assumption that everyone has the ability to think before acting on desires. However, the increasing advances in neuroscience have proven that there are limits to which this assumption can be made. The acts of one person cannot be distinguished from his/her biology. In fact, Eagleman states that if free will does exist, it has very little space to operate in. As an example, he tells the story of Kenneth Parks, a Canadian who killed his mother-in-law and assaulted his father-in-law, while sleepwalking. Because his actions were found to be completely involuntary, he was declared not guilty. Eagleman also cites chorea, a condition in which the actions of the face, hands, arms and legs seem voluntary even though they aren’t. He also cites alien-hand syndrome, a condition developed by split-brain patients in whom the actions of one hand are completely opposite to the actions of the other hand. With this in mind, Eagleman proposes that the legal system should be changed in a way that fits with those advances. He also realizes the implications that these advances could have on the way in which people are legally punished for their crimes. This would challenge the validity of declaring someone guilty for his/her …show more content…
crimes. Eagleman states that neurobiological advances should be used to assess sentencing times. He uses reasoning to get this point across. In other words, sentencing should be given in accordance to the probability of committing a subsequent offense. Those who demonstrate a high probability should stay longer than those who demonstrate a low probability. This is known as customized sentencing, which is a more practical solution than sending every offender to prison. He also emphasizes that those who are found to harbor some kind of mental illness should be sent to customized rehabilitation. He states that many people recognize that this is much more cost-effective than packing them into overcrowded prisons. A couple of rehabilitative strategies should enable these people to gain control of their impulses. One of them is the “prefrontal workout”, which trains them to stop acting on their impulses; in other words, not behave in a way that is frowned upon. With these examples, Eagleman is able to demonstrate that people who harbor mental diseases should not be treated as if they had the power to make the right choices. It is important to note that throughout his essay, Eagleman is careful to note that he is not opposed to keeping dangerous criminals off the streets.
He explicitly states that he is not opposed to incarceration either. He is just opposed to using incarceration as the only practical solution to keep criminals off the streets. Instead, those who are convicted and have brain diseases should be sent to a rehabilitation facility or trained to deprive him/herself from acting on his/her desires or compulsions. By being careful to make these statements in his essay, Eagleman demonstrates that he anticipates the readers’ skeptical reactions towards his statements. He expects readers to feel uncomfortable with his ideas and find them absurd but expects them to read through his essay in order for them to understand the point that he really is trying to get across. Eagleman mainly achieves this through the use of direct address, which makes the audience feel more comfortable accepting his ideas as valid. This, therefore, strengthens his credibility and allows him to defend his point of view more
effectively. David Eagleman is effective at defending the idea that the legal system should be changed in order to fit with the advances made in neuroscience. He uses examples of cases in which people committed crimes involuntarily. Eagleman also cites examples of mental diseases in which the victims have no control over their impulses or actions. Therefore, this essay challenges the idea that people have the power to choose how they live their lives and to make the right decisions at all times. Eagleman addresses the readers directly in order to be able to demonstrate that he knows that his ideas sound radical. However, he is careful to state that he’s neither opposed to getting criminals off the street nor to incarceration. He just states that it would be inappropriate to treat everyone as if they have the power to make the right decisions at all times. However, Eagleman also recognizes the legal implications of these advances as declaring people guilty or not guilty would become more complicated than before. In other words, there are people who simply cannot stop themselves from making horrible or tragic decisions.
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
" With violence affecting so many lives, one can understand the desire driven by fear to lock away young male offenders. But considering their impoverished, danger-filled lives, I wonder whether the threat of being locked up for decades can really deter them from crime" (305). Hopkins is definitely not our stereotypical prisoner. Most generally, our view of prisoners is not that of someone who has this profound use of wording and this broad sense of knowledge.
There is the question of what acts are voluntary. The Model Penal Code defines an “act” as a “bodily movement whether voluntary or involuntary” (Section 1.13 (2).) Even with this definition it makes distinguishing between whether an act “involuntary” or “voluntary” difficult in certain cases. The rationale of the voluntary act requirement and the reason for excluding criminal liability in the absence of voluntary action is explained in the case book as it being fundamental that a civilized society does not punish for thoughts alone. It continues to say that people whose involuntary move...
Kassin, Saul, and Lawrence Wrightsman (Eds.). The Psychology of Evidence and Trial Procedure. Chapter 3. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1985. Print.
In The article “Brainology” “Carol S Dweck, a professor of psychology at Stanford University, differentiates between having a fixed and growth mindset in addition how these mindsets have a deep effect on a student’s desire to learn. Individuals who have a fixed mindset believe they are smart without putting in effort and are afraid of obstacles, lack motivation, and their focus is to appear smart.. In contrast, students with a growth mindset learn by facing obstacles and are motivated to learn. Dwecks argues that students should develop a growth mindset.
... of public humiliation or being locked up for year. There is also a mention of how non-violent criminals are being affected by prison. This affects the reader emotional aspect toward the argument because it make’s the reader have sympathy causing them to lean toward Jacoby’s view. This is called an appeal to emotion and is not generally a good thing to have in a credible paper.
...uasion by the use of varies cases to support his argument. He mostly employs techniques such as juxtaposition, rhetorical question, and pathos and logos to strengthen his argument. However, his lack of use of an array of techniques makes his essay come short. In addition, when he states that “these are just the tiresome facts” he disregards his whole argument before that sentence by making it seem like his argument is irrelevant. Moreover, he fails to mention to his readers that he is a lawyer and also does not mention his cases which would have given him an authoritative position far better than Mayor Koch to state his view on the subject of death penalty. However I do agree with in saying that justice does demand that we punish murderers but not by execution but rather by imprisonment in which their bad conscience would become their enemy and tormentor for life.
David Eagleman, in his book Incognito: The Secret lives of the Brain, explores the relationship between the conscious and unconscious mind. Referencing many real-life stories and scientific experiments, Eagleman argues that we governed more by our unconscious. The book explores one main question: “If the conscious mind - the part you consider to be you - is just the tip of the iceberg, what is the rest doing?". We are not aware of what the rest of brain, the unconscious, is doing; rather, “the brain runs its show incognito” (Eagleman 7). In my book report, I have interwoven my synopsis and my reflection/connections to what we have learned in class so the essay flows more chronologically. Additionally, I chose the examples and case studies that I believed best reflected the central argument of the book. For quotes, I only included sentences that reflected a main idea and terms/phrases that
He persuades the audience by using verbal irony and statistics. When he first mentions prison, he uses verbal irony towards the subject to express his true attitude towards imprisonment by saying that locking people in cages is more humane than punishing them physically (197). This statement is ironic because he actually believes that imprisonment is a worse punishment than corporal punishment but says that it is more humane to ridicule the opposing argument. This irony serves its purpose of telling the audience that prison is
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...
As the scientific field of Neuroscience develops and expands, so too does the discipline of Neuroethics. This new and emerging area of study aims to discuss the ethical applications of advancements in neuroscience. Over the past few decades, technological advancements in neuroscience have risen sharply. Every day, scientist’s understanding of the human mind increases exponentially. New technologies grant researchers the ability to make cognitive enhancements, carry out brain imaging and provide the human brain with a variety of different services. Neuroethics attempts to bridge the capabilities of science, with the social and ethical climate of today’s world. New advancements in what scientists can do, such as Brain Imaging, Cognitive enhancement, pharmacological enhancement of mood, and brain machine interfaces and non-pharmacological enhancement must be carefully examined to determine their proper and ethical usage.
In an article titled, What is Forensic Psychology, Anyway?, John Brigham attempts to explain the beginnings of psychology and law; Forensics Psychology. Brigham explains that, “forensic psychology involves the interaction of psychology and the legal process” (Brigham 274). Brigham further highlights a historical case and the precedent established by the House of Lords through the induction of the McNaughten Rule, which translates, “To establish a defense on the ground of insanity it must be clearly proved that, at the time of committing the act, the party accused was laboring under such defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know nature and quality of the act he was doing, or he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong” (Finkel, 1988, p21; Brigham p275). Brigham explains that the concept of introducing psychology into the field of law ...
For instance, juveniles do not deserve life sentences because their brain isn 't fully develop yet and lack awareness of their actions. In the article “Startling Finds on Teenage Brains” by Paul Thompson, he explains the development of the brain and how at some situation the brain it isn 't ready and it can affect the person. This effect in divergent ways; psychologically and emotionally. On Thompson article introduces the case of Nathaniel Brazill, at age 14, he was charged second degree murder, trial as an adult and sentenced to life in prison without parole. After a serious research, it has shown that as many other juveniles who have committed a crime they are “far from adulthood”. As other experiments have been done, more statistics have find “a massive loss of brain tissues occurs in the teen years”, this supports his idea that brain lack of awareness due to the missing of important tissues. In another article “Adoles...
The foundation of our legal system rest upon the single philosophy that humans hold their own fate. Even though, we perceive in our daily lives the persistence of causation and effect. Even children understand the simplistic principle that every action will have a reaction. Despite this obvious knowledge, we as a society still implanted the belief that our actions are purely our own. Yet, with the comprehension of force that environmental factors impact our development, we continue to sentence people for crimes committed. Moreover, uncontrollable environmental influences are not the only deterministic factors we ignore in our societal view of crime. One’s biological composition can work against any moral motives that they
Insanity, automatism and diminished responsibility all play a significant role in cases where the defendant’s mind is abnormal while committing a crime. The definition of abnormal will be reviewed in relationship to each defence. In order to identify how these three defences compare and contrast, it is first important to understand their definition and application. The appropriate defence will be used once the facts of the cases have been distinguished and they meet the legal tests. The legal test of insanity is set out in M’Naghten’s Case: “to establish a defence…of insanity it must be clearly proved that, at the time of committing the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong.” To be specific, the defect of reason arises when the defendant is incapable of exercising normal reasoning. The defect of reason requires instability in reasoning rather than a failure to exercise it at a time when exercise of reason is possible. In the case of R v Clarke, the defendant was clinically depressed and in a moment of absent-mindedness, stole items from a supermarket...