Re: The Brain on Trial
On 29 Jun 2011, at 20:18, meekerdb wrote: On 6/29/2011 10:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 28 Jun 2011, at 20:06, meekerdb wrote: On 6/28/2011 10:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: It is avoidable. Even the cops explains the total non sense of prohibition. I am optimist: prohibition will fall down soon or later. Obviously the cops are the more aware of the total non sense of prohibition, because they are at the front of the 'war on drugs': http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEdzZaXwf8o Cannabis has made possible a very long prohibition, but it is also a sort of fatal error for the bandits. Congressmen Barney Frank and Ron Paul have introduced a bill in the U.S. House of Representatives that would allow states to legalize or otherwise liberalize marijuana laws without interference from the federal government. I think Ron Paul is against the prohibition of any drug, and I listen to some of his speech showing the failure of the 'war on drugs', and that was very nice. But I am not sure of what he thinks on other political domains. He's a libertarian, which means he's against any government social safety net (e.g. medicare, social security) I can understand. I differ a bit. I am for universal allocation. Every human beings has the right, as far as possible to have water and home. But others have the right to be as "rich" as they want and succeed to be. But a minimum dignity and respect should exist for anyone, even the animals. and any government regulation (e.g. food and drug administration, environmental protection agency, gun control laws) I am OK with this. and against any stationing of U.S. soldiers overseas. As a relatively old European, I can only be fearful with that idea. US soldiers have protected us. This does not mean I am for them being and messing everywhere. He deviates from strict libertarian ideas in that he thinks states should be able to restrict or ban abortions. That's a crazy incoherence. Gosh! I don't think I would vote for someone telling to the woman how they have to act. This is macho libertarianism. I am very sad that an anti-prohibitionist on drugs want to prohibit abortion. To be sure I am personally against abortion, but like with drugs, to prohibit abortion augments the number of abortion, and diminishes the safeness of the practice, etc. It is not a man's business, nor a government's business. Well, I can't certainly NOT vote for him, as an european 'course. I think there are to many negatives in that sentence. You exaggerate, there is only one negative too much :) Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: The Brain on Trial
On 6/29/2011 10:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 28 Jun 2011, at 20:06, meekerdb wrote: On 6/28/2011 10:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: It is avoidable. Even the cops explains the total non sense of prohibition. I am optimist: prohibition will fall down soon or later. Obviously the cops are the more aware of the total non sense of prohibition, because they are at the front of the 'war on drugs': http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEdzZaXwf8o Cannabis has made possible a very long prohibition, but it is also a sort of fatal error for the bandits. Congressmen Barney Frank and Ron Paul have introduced a bill in the U.S. House of Representatives that would allow states to legalize or otherwise liberalize marijuana laws without interference from the federal government. I think Ron Paul is against the prohibition of any drug, and I listen to some of his speech showing the failure of the 'war on drugs', and that was very nice. But I am not sure of what he thinks on other political domains. He's a libertarian, which means he's against any government social safety net (e.g. medicare, social security) and any government regulation (e.g. food and drug administration, environmental protection agency, gun control laws) and against any stationing of U.S. soldiers overseas. He deviates from strict libertarian ideas in that he thinks states should be able to restrict or ban abortions. Well, I can't certainly NOT vote for him, as an european 'course. I think there are to many negatives in that sentence. Brent A pity, somehow, given that prohibition is an international problem. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: The Brain on Trial
On 28 Jun 2011, at 20:06, meekerdb wrote: On 6/28/2011 10:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: It is avoidable. Even the cops explains the total non sense of prohibition. I am optimist: prohibition will fall down soon or later. Obviously the cops are the more aware of the total non sense of prohibition, because they are at the front of the 'war on drugs': http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEdzZaXwf8o Cannabis has made possible a very long prohibition, but it is also a sort of fatal error for the bandits. Congressmen Barney Frank and Ron Paul have introduced a bill in the U.S. House of Representatives that would allow states to legalize or otherwise liberalize marijuana laws without interference from the federal government. I think Ron Paul is against the prohibition of any drug, and I listen to some of his speech showing the failure of the 'war on drugs', and that was very nice. But I am not sure of what he thinks on other political domains. Well, I can't certainly NOT vote for him, as an european 'course. A pity, somehow, given that prohibition is an international problem. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: The Brain on Trial
> Congressmen Barney Frank and Ron Paul have introduced a bill in the > U.S. House of Representatives that would allow states to legalize or > otherwise liberalize marijuana laws without interference from the > federal government. > > Brent Purely symbolic--it will never make it out of committee. Still, how many House bills are co-authored by Frank and Paul? Strange bedfellows indeed. Johnathan -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: The Brain on Trial
On 6/28/2011 10:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: It is avoidable. Even the cops explains the total non sense of prohibition. I am optimist: prohibition will fall down soon or later. Obviously the cops are the more aware of the total non sense of prohibition, because they are at the front of the 'war on drugs': http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEdzZaXwf8o Cannabis has made possible a very long prohibition, but it is also a sort of fatal error for the bandits. Congressmen Barney Frank and Ron Paul have introduced a bill in the U.S. House of Representatives that would allow states to legalize or otherwise liberalize marijuana laws without interference from the federal government. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: The Brain on Trial
Hi Rex, From: Rex Allen Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 11:38 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: The Brain on Trial On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 8:40 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote: Why does it seem that there is no motivation to consider the victims of criminal behavior? In trying to be proactive in eliminating the causes of criminal behavior, we are considering the victims - by trying to avoid having anyone victimized in the first place. Similarly, in trying to deter criminal behavior, we are considering the victims. And in trying to rehabilitate those who have engaged in criminal behavior we're trying to avoid future victims, and also trying to find ways for the criminals to repay any debt to society - in part by becoming productive, tax paying citizens. Any discussion of criminal behavior is, in a real sense, "about" the victims of that behavior as well. Further, victims have a means of redress for actual damages in the civil court system. Which has a lower requirement of proof. In criminal court, the burden is on the state to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In civil court, the burden of proof is initially on the plaintiff, but can be moved to the defendant under some circumstances, and the required standard of proof is only "more likely than not". Recall that in the O.J. Simpson case, OJ was acquitted in the criminal case, but then lost the civil case against Nicole's family and ended paying damages to them anyway. If you happen to be unlucky enough to be victimized by a criminal with no assets...this inevitably raises the question of why they have so little. It's unfortunate for you that the crime occurred, but unfortunate also for the criminal that life has led him to a such circumstances. Similarly, criminal behavior caused by mental illness - such occurrences are like tornadoes, or earthquakes, or rabid animals. Mental illness is just an unfortunate consequence of how the world works. It's unfortunate for those afflicted, and it's unfortunate for the rest of us too. I don't think that anyone chooses to be mentally unbalanced...but that's where some people end up. As with all illness and misfortune, probably best to remember: "But for the grace of God, there go I." [SPK] All of which is great theory. ** The article that was originally posted seemed to imply a start of a chain of reasoning that leads inevitably toward arguing for a government control mechanism where *any* behavior can be declared to be criminal and thus in need of adjustment. I think you're imagining things. Get a hold of yourself man! You're getting all panicky and hysterical. [SPK} I have read too many history books perhaps.. *** The ban on smoking that is occurring in the US is a good example of this, IMHO! It's a negotiation between non-smokers and smokers. As fewer people smoker, the balance has shifted in favor of non-smokers. We're all trapped here on the planet together, and there are going to have to be rules in order for us to keep everything on track. Fewer rules is better, but no rules is not a realistic option. [SPK] I am a smoker so I have first hand experience of what regulations do. *** A secular version of a theocracy, for example. The movie Equilibrium (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0238380/ ) comes to mind. I think you shouldn't rely on movies like this to inform your views on...anything. [SPK] I see movies as the modern form of fables and myth. They give us ways to consider possible scenarios, much like the famous “thought experiemnts” of physics. I do not mean for them to “inform” but merely as a metaphor to illustrate a point without having to type out a narrative every time I might wish to convey an idea in an email forum such as this. I am a movie nut too... *** The main problem that I see in such schemes is that they inevitably lead to situations where a small elite decide what is and what is acceptable behavior, i.e. tyranny. "Inevitably" is way too strong a word. I'm extremely skeptical that a smoking ban will lead to totalitarian government. Not all slopes are slippery. In fact, *most* slopes are not slippery. It's entirely possible to stand securely even on a fairly steep incline. Either you're engaged in fear-mongering, or you don't have a good grip on reality. [SPK] I agree with your point about slippery slopes, but my claim is that I am actually in a real world situation where a few “elites” are dictating “what is and is not acceptable behavior” where I happen to live! Where do we draw the line is my question! So your claim of fear-mongering is ad hominem. *** Only when the individual is self-incentivized to "to the right thing" do I see a general diminution of criminal behaviors. "Self-incentivized"? What doe
Re: The Brain on Trial
On 28 Jun 2011, at 17:38, Rex Allen wrote: On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 8:40 PM, Stephen Paul King > wrote: Why does it seem that there is no motivation to consider the victims of criminal behavior? In trying to be proactive in eliminating the causes of criminal behavior, we are considering the victims - by trying to avoid having anyone victimized in the first place. Similarly, in trying to deter criminal behavior, we are considering the victims. And in trying to rehabilitate those who have engaged in criminal behavior we're trying to avoid future victims, and also trying to find ways for the criminals to repay any debt to society - in part by becoming productive, tax paying citizens. Any discussion of criminal behavior is, in a real sense, "about" the victims of that behavior as well. Further, victims have a means of redress for actual damages in the civil court system. Which has a lower requirement of proof. In criminal court, the burden is on the state to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In civil court, the burden of proof is initially on the plaintiff, but can be moved to the defendant under some circumstances, and the required standard of proof is only "more likely than not". Recall that in the O.J. Simpson case, OJ was acquitted in the criminal case, but then lost the civil case against Nicole's family and ended paying damages to them anyway. If you happen to be unlucky enough to be victimized by a criminal with no assets...this inevitably raises the question of why they have so little. It's unfortunate for you that the crime occurred, but unfortunate also for the criminal that life has led him to a such circumstances. Similarly, criminal behavior caused by mental illness - such occurrences are like tornadoes, or earthquakes, or rabid animals. Mental illness is just an unfortunate consequence of how the world works. It's unfortunate for those afflicted, and it's unfortunate for the rest of us too. I don't think that anyone chooses to be mentally unbalanced...but that's where some people end up. As with all illness and misfortune, probably best to remember: "But for the grace of God, there go I." The article that was originally posted seemed to imply a start of a chain of reasoning that leads inevitably toward arguing for a government control mechanism where *any* behavior can be declared to be criminal and thus in need of adjustment. I think you're imagining things. Get a hold of yourself man! You're getting all panicky and hysterical. The ban on smoking that is occurring in the US is a good example of this, IMHO! It's a negotiation between non-smokers and smokers. As fewer people smoker, the balance has shifted in favor of non-smokers. We're all trapped here on the planet together, and there are going to have to be rules in order for us to keep everything on track. Fewer rules is better, but no rules is not a realistic option. A secular version of a theocracy, for example. The movie Equilibrium (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0238380/ ) comes to mind. I think you shouldn't rely on movies like this to inform your views on...anything. The main problem that I see in such schemes is that they inevitably lead to situations where a small elite decide what is and what is acceptable behavior, i.e. tyranny. "Inevitably" is way too strong a word. I'm extremely skeptical that a smoking ban will lead to totalitarian government. Not all slopes are slippery. In fact, *most* slopes are not slippery. It's entirely possible to stand securely even on a fairly steep incline. Either you're engaged in fear-mongering, or you don't have a good grip on reality. But *some* slope are slippery. And *one* is enough to get the catastrophe. I don't know if the smoking ban will lead to totalitarian government, but I can argue that prohibition of drugs lead to something even worst than a totalitarian government: it leads to a mafia state. That is bandits totalitarianism. Prohibition gives the (black) money to the bandits and to the corrupted people which will favor the continuation of the process, and it gives more and more power to the bandits and the special interests. Without stopping prohibition, the bandits take full power. A large part of Health, like entertainment, like religion, has to be separated from the state. You should still pay a bill, or be sent in jail when selling a drug, but only if you sold it with wrong indications, or lack of warnings on possible side effects, or if you sold to a minor, or without medical prescription in the relevant cases. The prohibition of a dangerous drug multiplies its dangerousness by a large factor. That is why the prohibition of alcohol failed: it led quickly to individual and social disasters (bandits getting more and more power). The prohibition of cannabis lasted, and still last, since a long time
Re: The Brain on Trial
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 8:40 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote: > Why does it seem that there is no motivation to consider the victims of > criminal behavior? > In trying to be proactive in eliminating the causes of criminal behavior, we are considering the victims - by trying to avoid having anyone victimized in the first place. Similarly, in trying to deter criminal behavior, we are considering the victims. And in trying to rehabilitate those who have engaged in criminal behavior we're trying to avoid future victims, and also trying to find ways for the criminals to repay any debt to society - in part by becoming productive, tax paying citizens. Any discussion of criminal behavior is, in a real sense, "about" the victims of that behavior as well. Further, victims have a means of redress for actual damages in the civil court system. Which has a lower requirement of proof. In criminal court, the burden is on the state to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In civil court, the burden of proof is initially on the plaintiff, but can be moved to the defendant under some circumstances, and the required standard of proof is only "more likely than not". Recall that in the O.J. Simpson case, OJ was acquitted in the criminal case, but then lost the civil case against Nicole's family and ended paying damages to them anyway. If you happen to be unlucky enough to be victimized by a criminal with no assets...this inevitably raises the question of why they have so little. It's unfortunate for you that the crime occurred, but unfortunate also for the criminal that life has led him to a such circumstances. Similarly, criminal behavior caused by mental illness - such occurrences are like tornadoes, or earthquakes, or rabid animals. Mental illness is just an unfortunate consequence of how the world works. It's unfortunate for those afflicted, and it's unfortunate for the rest of us too. I don't think that anyone chooses to be mentally unbalanced...but that's where some people end up. As with all illness and misfortune, probably best to remember: "But for the grace of God, there go I." > The article that was originally posted seemed to imply a start of a chain > of reasoning that leads inevitably toward arguing for a government control > mechanism where *any* behavior can be declared to be criminal and thus in > need of adjustment. > I think you're imagining things. Get a hold of yourself man! You're getting all panicky and hysterical. > The ban on smoking that is occurring in the US is a good example of this, > IMHO! > It's a negotiation between non-smokers and smokers. As fewer people smoker, the balance has shifted in favor of non-smokers. We're all trapped here on the planet together, and there are going to have to be rules in order for us to keep everything on track. Fewer rules is better, but no rules is not a realistic option. > A secular version of a theocracy, for example. The movie Equilibrium ( > http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0238380/ ) comes to mind. > I think you shouldn't rely on movies like this to inform your views on...anything. > The main problem that I see in such schemes is that they inevitably > lead to situations where a small elite decide what is and what is acceptable > behavior, i.e. tyranny. > "Inevitably" is way too strong a word. I'm extremely skeptical that a smoking ban will lead to totalitarian government. Not all slopes are slippery. In fact, *most* slopes are not slippery. It's entirely possible to stand securely even on a fairly steep incline. Either you're engaged in fear-mongering, or you don't have a good grip on reality. > Only when the individual is self-incentivized to "to the right thing" do I > see a general diminution of criminal behaviors. > "Self-incentivized"? What does that even mean? No humans are born knowing the "right thing" to do. They have to be taught. The incentives have to provided by their environment. By family, and by society. So what's this non-sense about self-incentivization? You're not even thinking logically. > But such requires that the true causes of criminal behavior be identified > and minimized at an individual level, not by some state institution. > If statistics over a population show some recurring pattern or trend, then those statistics are most likely reflecting something real and structural. If not *all* people show the behavior, then it's likely not "human nature" that is to blame, but rather the way society is structured that produces the behavior that is seen in individuals. > If criminal behavior is the result of natural predilections within humans > then are we going to have to genetically engineer out criminality? > Again, there's no reason to carry things to extremes, except for rhetorical propaganda purposes, which is what I think most of your post amounts to. You don't want to take reasonable steps, so you extrapolate out to some extreme and then invoke the inevitability of
Re: The Brain on Trial
-Original Message- From: meekerdb Sent: Monday, June 27, 2011 7:35 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: The Brain on Trial On 6/27/2011 8:56 AM, Rex Allen wrote: > And it seems like the question can only be answered by trying out > approaches like those described in the article. > > You seem to have already made up your mind though. No testing or > evidence required - Brent has spoken. > > > Rex > Not at all. I'm all for trying such methods. But that doesn't invalidate my point that there are reasons for punishment, deterrence and prevention of feuds, that are not dependent on some theory of personal culpability or deterring re-offense. And no I'm not for returning to public punishments, and especially not executions and corporal punishments. By coarsening public empathy they probably produced more crime than they deterred. In fact I worry that the harshness of our overcrowded prisons may also have the effect of producing more recidivism. Brent -- Why does it seem that there is no motivation to consider the victims of criminal behavior? The article that was originally posted seemed to imply a start of a chain of reasoning that leads inevitably toward arguing for a government control mechanism where *any* behavior can be declared to be criminal and thus in need of adjustment. The ban on smoking that is occurring in the US is a good example of this, IMHO! A secular version of a theocracy, for example. The movie Equilibrium (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0238380/ ) comes to mind. The main problem that I see in such schemes is that they inevitably lead to situations where a small elite decide what is and what is acceptable behavior, i.e. tyranny. Only when the individual is self-incentivized to "to the right thing" do I see a general diminution of criminal behaviors. But such requires that the true causes of criminal behavior be identified and minimized at an individual level, not by some state institution. If criminal behavior is the result of natural predilections within humans then are we going to have to genetically engineer out criminality? Perhaps there is no complete solution to criminality, maybe there are just various methods that work in some cases and fail in others. Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: The Brain on Trial
On 6/27/2011 8:56 AM, Rex Allen wrote: And it seems like the question can only be answered by trying out approaches like those described in the article. You seem to have already made up your mind though. No testing or evidence required - Brent has spoken. Rex Not at all. I'm all for trying such methods. But that doesn't invalidate my point that there are reasons for punishment, deterrence and prevention of feuds, that are not dependent on some theory of personal culpability or deterring re-offense. And no I'm not for returning to public punishments, and especially not executions and corporal punishments. By coarsening public empathy they probably produced more crime than they deterred. In fact I worry that the harshness of our overcrowded prisons may also have the effect of producing more recidivism. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: The Brain on Trial
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 12:08 AM, meekerdb wrote: > On 6/26/2011 7:23 PM, Rex Allen wrote: > >> >> So what does compatibilism have to say about this? Nothing useful, it >> seems to me... >> >> >> http://www.theatlantic.com/**magazine/archive/2011/07/the-** >> brain-on-trial/8520/<http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/07/the-brain-on-trial/8520/> >> >> Advances in brain science are calling into question the volition behind >> many criminal acts. A leading neuroscientist describes how the foundations >> of our criminal-justice system are beginning to crumble, and proposes a new >> way forward for law and order. >> >> ON THE STEAMY first day of August 1966, Charles Whitman took an elevator >> to the top floor of the University of Texas Tower in Austin. The 25-year-old >> climbed the stairs to the observation deck, lugging with him a footlocker >> full of guns and ammunition. At the top, he killed a receptionist with the >> butt of his rifle. Two families of tourists came up the stairwell; he shot >> at them at point-blank range. Then he began to fire indiscriminately from >> the deck at people below. The first woman he shot was pregnant. As her >> boyfriend knelt to help her, Whitman shot him as well. He shot pedestrians >> in the street and an ambulance driver who came to rescue them... >> >> [...] >> >> WHILE OUR CURRENT style of punishment rests on a bedrock of personal >> volition and blame, our modern understanding of the brain suggests a >> different approach. Blameworthiness should be removed from the legal argot. >> It is a backward-looking concept that demands the impossible task of >> untangling the hopelessly complex web of genetics and environment that >> constructs the trajectory of a human life. >> >> Instead of debating culpability, we should focus on what to do, moving >> forward, with an accused lawbreaker. I suggest that the legal system has to >> become forward-looking, primarily because it can no longer hope to do >> otherwise. As science complicates the question of culpability, our legal and >> social policy will need to shift toward a different set of questions: How is >> a person likely to behave in the future? Are criminal actions likely to be >> repeated? Can this person be helped toward pro-social behavior? How can >> incentives be realistically structured to deter crime? >> > > Rather than being forward-looking, the above recommendation is myopic and > reactionary. Reactionary? How so? If he were proposing that we -return- to public executions and floggings, *that* would be reactionary. His proposal is, if anything, radical. As for myopic...I'm not sure how that pejorative applies either. It's like you're just picking insults at random... His comment on deterrence: "We have hope that this approach represents the correct model: it is grounded simultaneously in biology and in libertarian ethics, allowing a person to help himself by improving his long-term decision-making. Like any scientific attempt, it could fail for any number of unforeseen reasons. But at least we have reached a point where we can develop new ideas rather than assuming that repeated incarceration is the single practical solution for deterring crime." > The point of punishing the criminal is not revenge or even retribution. It > is based on two forward looking objectives: > > 1) Deter others by the exemplar punishment. > > 2) Prevent feuds by replacing private retribution with public. > > Why do you think executions and corporal punishment used to be public? > Because they couldn't think of anything better. Given what they knew at the time, that was all they could come up with. Do you hold the reactionary position of wishing to return to these practices? >> The important change will be in the way we respond to the vast range of >> criminal acts. Biological explanation will not exculpate criminals; we will >> still remove from the streets lawbreakers who prove overaggressive, >> underempathetic, and poor at controlling their impulses. Consider, for >> example, that the majority of known serial killers were abused as children. >> Does this make them less blameworthy? Who cares? It’s the wrong question. >> The knowledge that they were abused encourages us to support social programs >> to prevent child abuse, but it does nothing to change the way we deal with >> the particular serial murderer standing in front of the bench. We still need >> to keep him off the streets, irrespective of his past misfortunes. The child >> abuse cannot serve as an excuse to let him go; the judge must keep society >>
Re: The Brain on Trial
On 6/26/2011 7:23 PM, Rex Allen wrote: So what does compatibilism have to say about this? Nothing useful, it seems to me... http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/07/the-brain-on-trial/8520/ Advances in brain science are calling into question the volition behind many criminal acts. A leading neuroscientist describes how the foundations of our criminal-justice system are beginning to crumble, and proposes a new way forward for law and order. ON THE STEAMY first day of August 1966, Charles Whitman took an elevator to the top floor of the University of Texas Tower in Austin. The 25-year-old climbed the stairs to the observation deck, lugging with him a footlocker full of guns and ammunition. At the top, he killed a receptionist with the butt of his rifle. Two families of tourists came up the stairwell; he shot at them at point-blank range. Then he began to fire indiscriminately from the deck at people below. The first woman he shot was pregnant. As her boyfriend knelt to help her, Whitman shot him as well. He shot pedestrians in the street and an ambulance driver who came to rescue them... [...] WHILE OUR CURRENT style of punishment rests on a bedrock of personal volition and blame, our modern understanding of the brain suggests a different approach. Blameworthiness should be removed from the legal argot. It is a backward-looking concept that demands the impossible task of untangling the hopelessly complex web of genetics and environment that constructs the trajectory of a human life. Instead of debating culpability, we should focus on what to do, moving forward, with an accused lawbreaker. I suggest that the legal system has to become forward-looking, primarily because it can no longer hope to do otherwise. As science complicates the question of culpability, our legal and social policy will need to shift toward a different set of questions: How is a person likely to behave in the future? Are criminal actions likely to be repeated? Can this person be helped toward pro-social behavior? How can incentives be realistically structured to deter crime? Rather than being forward-looking, the above recommendation is myopic and reactionary. The point of punishing the criminal is not revenge or even retribution. It is based on two forward looking objectives: 1) Deter others by the exemplar punishment. 2) Prevent feuds by replacing private retribution with public. Why do you think executions and corporal punishment used to be public? The important change will be in the way we respond to the vast range of criminal acts. Biological explanation will not exculpate criminals; we will still remove from the streets lawbreakers who prove overaggressive, underempathetic, and poor at controlling their impulses. Consider, for example, that the majority of known serial killers were abused as children. Does this make them less blameworthy? Who cares? It’s the wrong question. The knowledge that they were abused encourages us to support social programs to prevent child abuse, but it does nothing to change the way we deal with the particular serial murderer standing in front of the bench. We still need to keep him off the streets, irrespective of his past misfortunes. The child abuse cannot serve as an excuse to let him go; the judge must keep society safe. -- And even if by chemical or other means we could be sure he would not re-offend the judge would still punish him because of (1) and (2) supra. Brent You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
The Brain on Trial
So what does compatibilism have to say about this? Nothing useful, it seems to me... http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/07/the-brain-on-trial/8520/ Advances in brain science are calling into question the volition behind many criminal acts. A leading neuroscientist describes how the foundations of our criminal-justice system are beginning to crumble, and proposes a new way forward for law and order. ON THE STEAMY first day of August 1966, Charles Whitman took an elevator to the top floor of the University of Texas Tower in Austin. The 25-year-old climbed the stairs to the observation deck, lugging with him a footlocker full of guns and ammunition. At the top, he killed a receptionist with the butt of his rifle. Two families of tourists came up the stairwell; he shot at them at point-blank range. Then he began to fire indiscriminately from the deck at people below. The first woman he shot was pregnant. As her boyfriend knelt to help her, Whitman shot him as well. He shot pedestrians in the street and an ambulance driver who came to rescue them... [...] WHILE OUR CURRENT style of punishment rests on a bedrock of personal volition and blame, our modern understanding of the brain suggests a different approach. Blameworthiness should be removed from the legal argot. It is a backward-looking concept that demands the impossible task of untangling the hopelessly complex web of genetics and environment that constructs the trajectory of a human life. Instead of debating culpability, we should focus on what to do, moving forward, with an accused lawbreaker. I suggest that the legal system has to become forward-looking, primarily because it can no longer hope to do otherwise. As science complicates the question of culpability, our legal and social policy will need to shift toward a different set of questions: How is a person likely to behave in the future? Are criminal actions likely to be repeated? Can this person be helped toward pro-social behavior? How can incentives be realistically structured to deter crime? The important change will be in the way we respond to the vast range of criminal acts. Biological explanation will not exculpate criminals; we will still remove from the streets lawbreakers who prove overaggressive, underempathetic, and poor at controlling their impulses. Consider, for example, that the majority of known serial killers were abused as children. Does this make them less blameworthy? Who cares? It’s the wrong question. The knowledge that they were abused encourages us to support social programs to prevent child abuse, but it does nothing to change the way we deal with the particular serial murderer standing in front of the bench. We still need to keep him off the streets, irrespective of his past misfortunes. The child abuse cannot serve as an excuse to let him go; the judge must keep society safe. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
