The Brain On Trail David Eagleman Summary

The tension between rehabilitation and punishment has been increasing dramatically. This is because there have been sharp rises in the prison population and repeat offender rates. When one area is over emphasized in relation to the other, there is the possibility that imbalances will occur. Over the course of time, these issues can create challenges that will impact the criminal justice system and society at large. (Gadek, 2010) (Clear, 2011) (Gatotch, 2011)

The basic assumption of the behaviourist approach is that all behaviour is learned through experiences a person has in their environment. From this we know that behaviourists are on the side of nature in the “nature vs. nurture” debate. In comparison bio psychologists will be firmly on the side of nurture.

The way the criminal justice system should handle crimes has always been a debated subject. For over the last forty years, ever since the war on drugs, there are more policies made to be “tough on crime”. From then, correctional systems have grown and as people are doing more crimes, there are plenty of punishments for them. In the mid 1970’s, rehabilitation was the main concern for the criminal justice system. It was common that when someone was convicted of a crime, they would be sentenced to prison but there would also be diagnosed treatments to help them as well. Most likely, they would have committed a crime due to psychological problems. When they receive treatment in prison, they can be healed and would not go back to their wrong lifestyle they had lived before. As years have gone by, people thought that it was better to take a more punitive stance in the criminal justice system. As a result of the turnaround of this more punitive criminal justice system, the United States now has more than 2 million people in prisons or jails--the equivalent of one in every 142 U.S. residents--and another four to five million people on probation or parole. The U.S. has a higher percentage of the

David Dobbs in the Article “Beautiful Brains” proves the theme that it takes teenage brains longer to mature due to the recent change in impulsivity and adolescent behaviors.

In “The Brain on Trial” David Eagleman (2011) informs us about an incident where a man shot himself as well as other people around him. He writes the suicide note that the man left and he talks about the man requesting an autopsy on himself. When doing the autopsy they discover a tumor on his brain. He talks about the symptoms that come with the tumor and how the man was right about there being something wrong with brain. Eagleman says that these situations aren’t uncommon. He then starts to talk about another man named Alex who had a thing for child pornography. They then discovered a tumor in his brain and when removed he was back to normals and didn’t have any urges for child pornography until the tumor grew back. He talks about other problems

Between the 1920s and the 1950s the behaviourist approach was often primarily used. Behaviourists thought that psychology should be viewed as scientific, therefore theories within the approach consisted of controlled observations and measurements of behaviour which resulted in quantitative data, sometimes through the process of experiments. Within this perspective there is no room for free will, as all behaviour and thoughts are determined by the environment (Don, K. 2015), this is also the case from the biological aspect as they

The brain can be affected by damage and cause behavior to be expressed differently in every person. Events such as a car crash or childhood abuse can affect brain development and function. Damage to certain areas of the brain can have a variety of effects. The hippocampus controls emotions and is associated with memory, and the frontal lobe is a brain cortex that controls motor functions, problem solving, memory, language, judgments, social and sexual behavior and impulse. When the frontal lobe or hippocampus is affected, a person’s emotion can be out of their control. In criminal cases, brain damage can affect the sentencing of a violent criminal, but to what extent should these abnormalities play a role in their conviction? Much research has been conducted in order to determine the effect that brain abnormalities should have on the conviction of violent criminals. A psychiatrist at New York University, Dr. Lewis, has conducted a study on death-row inmates, how their brains work and what affect the damage had on their conviction. By doing so Dr. Lewis paved the way for other researchers, such as Kent Kiehl and Jonathan H. Pincus to study the brains of violent criminals looking for a answer as to whether or not these criminals should be incarcerated. Over time research has been conducted focusing on mental illnesses and brain damage as the cause of violent acts instead of it being just premeditated murder. Many believe brain damage or mental illness should have no affect on

According to Drugabuse.gov, Drug addiction is defined as a chronic, relapsing brain disease that is characterized by compulsive drug seeking and use, despite harmful consequences. Addiction is viewed as brain disease due to the changes that are going on in the brain due to the usage of the drugs, so it alters the structure and how it regularly functions. However, after reading Maia Szalavitz book, “Unbroken Brain: A Revolutionary new way of understanding addiction (2016)”, she has a unique view of what brain addiction is and her experience with addiction. In her novel, she views addiction as a learning disorder, like in her case it started early on in her as a child learning to be addicted to other things that develop habits of pleasure, reaction that makes up their addiction. Her memoir is her personal experience with addiction with using reputable journals and study to convey her point on what her rollercoaster with addictions has been starting early on in early childhood.

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

As defined by the American Psychiatric Association (2013), individuals diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) exhibit “a pervasive pattern of disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others that begins in childhood or early adolescence and continues into adulthood. Individuals, both with and without ASPD, often find themselves facing stiff consequences when they break the law by violating the rights of others. The propensity of individuals with ASPD to break such laws is one possible explanation for the prevalence of ASPD increasing from a range of 0.2% to 3.3% in the general population to 47% in prisons (American Psychiatric Association, 2013; Fazel & Danesh, 2002). With such a disparity between the general and prison prevalence of ASPD, it is clear that society is adroit in isolating the undesired behaviors of individuals with ASPD; however, society also has a responsibility to protect the rights of those diagnosed with a bonafide illness. If ASPD is the cause of an individual’s incarceration, then their successful reintegration into society relies on treating the underlying diagnosis, and in order to do that, it is important to understand the neurobiological foundations of ASPD.

It is very rare to study something that is as fascinating yet as bewildering as the distinctive paradox, that is the human brain. Every individuals conflicting behaviour and elaborate character that make them the person they are must have a justification. I originally established a fascination in forensic psychology as I read about a sequence of homicides committed by Gary Ridgway, otherwise known as the “Green River Killer”. Upon discovery of this case, questions began to pervade in my head about what may be the cause for an individual to execute such things, and just how someone’s mind could be so peculiarly dissimilar to my own.

When I first began to read this article the first thing that popped in my head was the movie “Minority Report.” In this movie people were incarcerated for crimes that they did not yet commit because people believed that three individuals could foresee the future. Which to some extent I believe that brain pathology and neurocriminology. Yes, there have been studies where some criminal’s brains function differently than a normal individuals. However, there needs to be a lot more research done because not everyone who may have these same disorders are going to make the same decision on becoming a criminal. In the article they say that there are many different factors that could influence an individual into a life of crime such as environment,

It is very rare these days to turn on the news and not hear about a crime or a murder. Crime is a common occurrence yet many times it is difficult to understand how someone could bring themselves to do these things. It does seem to make any sense why a young handsome man from a good family would want to kill someone and then be able to go through with it. This leads one to wonder if the brains of people who behave in socially unacceptable ways are different from everyone else's brains. There is a substantial amount of evidence that suggests some criminals do have differences in their brains that most likely contribute to their behavior. Many of these individuals have Antisocial Personality Disorder and

Genetic influences on behavior can affect the criminal justice system. If a person is convicted of a crime with a mental disorder they have diminished responsibility for the crime and may not be held accountable because of their behavior and since this is the case should then genes affecting your behavior be treated the same way(“Genetics and Human Behaviour: The Ethical Context”).

Behavioral neuroscience or biological psychology employs the principles of brain pathology to the study of human behavior through genetic, physiological, and developmental operations, as well as, the brain’s capacity to change with experience. Since the second world war, crime was largely attributed to mostly economic, political, and social factors, along with what psychologists termed at the time, the “weak character” of mental disturbance, and brain biology was rarely considered. However, new advances in neuroscience and technology have allowed a number of studies that link brain development, impairment, and injury to criminal violence. This emerging field of psychology explores the brain at a microscopic level, focusing studies on the roles that the brain’s neurons, circuitry, neurotransmitters, and basic biological processes play in defining and molding all human behavior.