preview

Eagleman Redundant

Decent Essays

Second Chances, Required or Redundant? The United States formed the principle of “Innocent until proven guilty”. Sometimes the perpetrator knows that they’re guilty, but they’re found not guilty. Kenneth Parks, a twenty-three-year-old man who “… Broke in, stabbed his mother… drove himself to the police station… said ‘I think I may have killed some people’” (Quoted in Eagleman 437). Parks was a man who committed murder and was found not guilty. Various parties knew that Parks committed the murder, but motive was the reason he was found not guilty. Controversy around Parks’ adjudication just added to existing debates about psychological crimes. Who did the crime, the culprit or his/her biological factors? Should the culprit get rehabilitation …show more content…

Rehabilitation is for those who can prove that genetic factors took over their free will and caused the crime. Charles Whitman killed thirteen people and wounded thirty-two others (Eagleman 431). Researchers found that a tumor was harbored on his brain. The tumor compressed the amygdala which regulates fear and aggression (Eagleman 432). Obviously Whitman didn’t have control over the growing tumor, but he still did the killing. If Whitman lived after his shooting spree, would society accept him as a normal human being? Arguments can be made that if the tumor was removed, Whitman may have never started his shooting spree. There are occasions where tumors grow back, and he’ll just start his shooting spree later. Tumors …show more content…

There’s chances that an actual criminal could be faking a psychological dysfunction so they won’t be charged as guilty. Sapolsky asserts “Is a child doing poorly at school because he is unmotivated and slow, or because there is a neurobiological based learning disability?” (Quoted in Eagleman 438). Sapolsky’s question shows that it’s uncomplicated to mistake one thing for another. If a culprit committed a crim, and claimed that his/her motivation to do the crime was neurobiological, who’s to say that he/she is wrong? Even if the culprit was telling the truth, and he/she was sent to rehabilitation, they could hurt the workers with their impulses like Alex once tried to do. Even if rehabilitation did work, who’s to watch the patients after they got out? Dr. Kleiman proposes that “drug offenders undergo twice-weekly drug testing” (Quoted in Eagleman 442). Who’s to pay for these workers that are watching the patients? Who’s to pay for the rehabilitation facilities? Instead of using tax-payer dollars on trying to fix criminals for the crimes that they’ve done, the money can be used for a better purpose. Alex has shown that the impulses can come back at any time. Murderers and pedophiles shouldn’t be let into society just in case the feel these impulses. Even if they were let back into society, no one would look at them the

Get Access