The Brain and the Law: How Neuroscience Will Shift Blameworthiness
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 6 ก.ย. 2024
- David Eagleman
June 4, 2013
Insights from neuroscience are challenging long-held assumptions at the core of our criminal justice system. Are all brains really created equal? Is mass incarceration the most fruitful method of dealing with juveniles, the mentally ill, and the drug-addicted? Do emerging technologies such as real-time brain imaging offer new methods of rehabilitation? David Eagleman explains how most behaviors are driven by brain networks that we do not consciously control, and why the legal system will eventually be forced to shift its emphasis from individual blameworthiness to analysis of likely future behavior.
![[Re:all TREASURE] EP.6 in 방콕ㅣ🚩 쩡캠의 방콕 투어 빵 마이 와이 👍](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/uyFw-nItA_s/mqdefault.jpg)
This is a fantastic video. I think a summary video should be made, perhaps no longer than 5 or 10 minutes - it would go viral.
"The exact same brain in a different setting can be a villain or a hero."
Very true, and very interesting. This takes a scientific approach to something that I have believed for a while now.
Just goes to show you really cant take other people's actions personally. Forgiveness is divine, and its also the only logical reaction.
Blameworthiness is not the same as responsibility. A tornado is responsible for leveling a
town, but it doesn't make sense to try to punish it.
Really cool talk. A small gripe, though: re. the Chris Benoit murder-suicide, at the start of the talk David mentions only high testosterone levels. While it's true that Benoit (and many wrestlers) had used/abused steroids and the likes for years, other factors, like repeated massive cranial/brain trauma (getting bashed in the head by steel chairs is not good for your health) could well have been important (maybe more important than steroids/HGH). Throw in huge amounts of self-administered pain medication and things get yet more dangerous. All this fits of course with the idea that our brain, if changed, leads to changed behaviour. (David also gets the name of the organisation Benoit worked for wrong, which, while no big deal, makes me wonder if he's just skimmed this issue rather than looked at it properly.)
In our society paedophilia is considered worse than murder. Even a suspected paedophile gets great public shaming. He is prevented from ever having an opportunity to reoffend. Perhaps that in why the recidivism rate is so low.
4:53. As usual, the cases he mentions do not show we are inseparable from our brains but just that brain has an influence on mind and behavior.
If: this was going to be taken on face value; people would be incarcerated for far longer than they are now. Hence why that high rearrest rate for those unable to admit blame for their offence. Is drinking wrong? Is taking drugs wrong? Is stealing wrong? Is abnormal sexual preferences wrong? It can only relate to how these acts impinges on others. How can it be about if we like it or not. Therefore: this has to be about; how do we get that victim to forgive and forget. Personally: I hate the idea of no free will. We do have a will to enact. Sadly: this has to be about if others will like that behavior. The presenter said it, clearly, when that uniform or position is being played out on our behalf. Who flicks that switch in executions? Who'll push that button on another nation? Who ignores that citizen in need of help? We're all capable of accepting any of those. Caring about others is a social question. Otherwise: become a hermit to avoid upsetting them.
"You can please some of the people some of the time but not all of the people all of the time!"
we have no idea whats going on in brain and we even have less individual scientists which are ready to admit that memoriea are not local and so the consciousness is not local eitehr ... he is to pragmatic and to narrow minded for the job..
unfortunately those which are narrow minded and ready to be controlled by lobbies are those who ost often in mass media..
James Whitman had an interesting childhood. Violence was an influential part of his life apparently. The tumor could have been inconsequential, or even manifested by life experiences. Any way we choose to approach the events, more questions arise than answers.
The only POWER that can be equally shared is WILL POWER_that which 1 CAN DO BY WILL ALONE_How 1 reacts to everything 1 XPeriences tells 1 everything 1 needs to know about the POWER of ONE'S OWN WILL_everything else has already been decided 4U_that which is TRUE WILL @lw@ys be TRUE_& MUST BE to have meaning/gravity/weight_&@ll this 1 @lready KNOWS_whether 1 is AWARE of it OR NOT_iF UR reading this NOW_U canT say U've NEVER been TOLD/:
Free will exist for the tours and Net for the natives.
Why didn't you talk about you talk about civil commitment for sex offenders?
Ahh the return of biological determinism. Galton gave it first. Eugenics 3.0 here we come.