The Law and Neuroscience Blog

The Brain on Trial

David M. Eagleman
Baylor College of Medicine

This article summarizes several difficulties with the current system of criminal justice. It begins with several examples to clarify the relationship between biology and behavior, identifies problems with the assumption that all brains are created equal, argues for a forward-looking justice system, describes new opportunities from neuroscience for rehabilitation, and offers a roadmap to achieve a more tailored, customized, neurally-compatible system of sentencing.

Eagleman, David M. (2011), The Brain on Trial. Atlantic Monthy: Jul/Aug 2011, 308:1, 112-123.

The Antisocial Person

The Annals of General Psychiatry has a nice review piece entitled, "The 'antisocial' person: an insight in to biology, classification and current evidence on treatment."

Abstract

Background: This review analyses and summarises the recent advances in understanding the neurobiology of violence and empathy, taxonomical issues on defining personality disorders characterised by disregard for social norms, evidence for efficacy of different treatment modalities and ethical implications in defining 'at-risk' individuals for preventive interventions.

Methods: PubMed was searched with the keywords 'antisocial personality disorder', 'dissocial personality disorder' and 'psychopathy'. The search was limited to articles published in English over the last 10 years (1999 to 2009)

Results: Both diagnostic manuals used in modern psychiatry, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual published by the American Psychiatric Association and the International Classification of Diseases published by the World Health Organization, identify a personality disorder sharing similar traits. It is termed antisocial personality disorder in the diagnostic and statistical manual and dissocial personality disorder in the International Classification of Diseases. However, some authors query the ability of the existing manuals to identify a special category termed 'psychopathy', which in their opinion deserves special attention. On treatment-related issues, many psychological and behavioural therapies have shown success rates ranging from 25% to 62% in different cohorts. Multisystemic therapy and cognitive behaviour therapy have been proven efficacious in many trials. There is no substantial evidence for the efficacy of pharmacological therapy. Currently, the emphasis is on early identification and prevention of antisocial behaviour despite the ethical implications of defining at-risk children.Conclusions: Further research is needed in the areas of neuroendocrinological associations of violent behaviour, taxonomic existence of psychopathy and efficacy of treatment modalities.

Scientific Advances and the Death Penalty

The Wall Street Journal Law Blog has an interesting piece on science and the death penalty.  Here is a brief excerpt:

Will scientific advances ultimately spell doom for capital punishment?

That’s the question raised by this piece over at the Arizona Republic, which examined a recent conference at Arizona State that looked at advances in neuroscience and genetics — and how they might help explain criminal behavior.

The thought goes like this: A better understanding of criminal behavior might ultimately lead society to show more compassion for those who suffer from the genetic defects that lead them to kill, maim, or commit other criminal acts.

“There is a ton of new science coming forward in both genetics and neuroscience that describe the brain in a way that leads to a predisposition to violent behavior,” said Gary Marchant, the executive director of the Center for Law, Science & Innovations at Arizona State University’s Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law. In the not-to-distant future, predicts Marchant, science will kill the death penalty.

Happy reading!

MAOA and Criminal Responsibility

Matthew Baum has a new piece in Neuroethics entitled, "The MAOA Predisposition to Impulsive Violence: Is it Relevant to Criminal Trials?"  

Here is the abstract:

In Italy, a judge reduced the sentence of a defendant by 1 year in response to evidence for a genetic predisposition to violence. The best characterized of these genetic differences, those in the monoamine oxidase A (MAOA), were cited as especially relevant. Several months previously in the USA, MAOA data contributed to a jury reducing charges from 1st degree murder (a capital offence) to voluntary manslaughter. Is there a rational basis for this type of use of MAOA evidence in criminal court? This paper will review in context recent work on the MAOA gene–environment interaction in predisposing individuals to violence and address the relevance of such findings to murder trials. Interestingly, the MAOA genetic variants impact future violence and aggression only when combined with the adverse environmental stimuli of childhood maltreatment. Thus nature and nurture interact to determine the individual’s risk. Based on current evidence, I argue there is a weak case for mitigation. But should future experiments confirm the hypothesis that individual differences in impulse control and response to provocation found in MAOA-L men (without abuse) are significantly magnified when combined with childhood maltreatment, the case could turn into a stronger one.

 

Neuroscientific Challenges to Retributivism

Michael Pardo and Dennis Patterson have a new piece entitled, "Neuroscientific Challenges to Retributivism" that is scheduled to appear in a forthcoming volume that I am editing for Oxford University Press entitled The Future of Punishment.

Abstract:      
We examine two recent challenges to retribution-based justifications for criminal punishment based on neuroscientific evidence. The first seeks to undermine retributivism because of the brain activity of subjects engaged in punishment decisions for retributive (as opposed to consequentialist) reasons. This challenge proceeds by linking retributivism with deontological moral theories and the brain activity correlated with deontological moral judgments. The second challenge seeks to undermine retributivism by exposing, through neuroscientific information, the purportedly implausible foundation on which retributivism depends: one based on free will and folk psychology. 

We conclude that neither challenge succeeds. The first challenge fails, in part, because the brain activity of punishers does not provide the appropriate criteria for whether judgments regarding criminal punishment are justified or correct. Moreover, retributivism does not necessarily depend on the success or failure of any particular moral theory. The second challenge fails because neuroscience does not undermine the conceptions of free will or folk psychology on which retributivism depends. Along the way, we point out a number of faulty inferences and problematic assumptions and presuppositions involved in these challenges to retributivism.

The Deciding Brain

Charlie Rose recently hosted a series of discussions about recent advances in the sciences of the mind. One of these shows featured LANP's own Joshua Greene.  The episide is entitled, "The Deciding Brain." 

Dennett on Neuroscience, Free Will, and Just Deserts

The Situationist just posted a recent talk that was given at HLS by Dan Dennett entitled "Free Will, Responsibility, and the Brain."  Dennett always gives good talks and this is no exception. So, it's well worth the watch!  

How Neuroscience is Changing the Law

Big Think has a recent piece that incorporates an interview with our own Owen Jones entitled, "How Neuroscience is Changing the Law."

Software, Prediction, and Future Violence

ABC News recently posted a piece entitled "Software Predicts Criminal Behavior" which examines the software that has been developed by Richard Berk and colleagues for the purposes of violence risk assessment.  Legal decision makers in Washington D.C. are going to be using the software to make determinations concerning sentencing and bail. 

The Neurobiology of Evil

Big Think has posted a recent interview with Michael Stone entitled "The Neurobiology of Evil."  If you haven't checked out Big Think before, you should also watch some of their other fascinating interviews with folks like Kwame Appiah, Antonio Damasio, Joseph LeDoux, Alfred Mele, and others.