Neuroscience

Articles and news from the latest research reports.

187 notes

The ethical minefield of using neuroscience to prevent crime
On the evening of March 10, 2007, Abdelmalek Bayout, an Algerian citizen living in Italy, brutally stabbed to death Walter Perez, a fellow immigrant from Colombia. Bayout admitted to the crime, saying he was provoked by Perez, who ridiculed him for wearing eye makeup.
According to Nature magazine, Bayout’s defence argued that he was mentally ill at the time of the offence. The court accepted that argument and, although it found Bayout guilty of the crime, imposed on him a reduced prison sentence of nine years and two months.
Bayout nevertheless appealed the judgment, and the Court of Appeal ordered a new psychiatric report. That report showed, among other things, that Bayout had low levels of the neurotransmitter monoamine oxidase A (MAO-A) — an important development given that previous research discovered that men who had low MAO-A levels and who had been abused as children were more likely to be convicted of violent crimes as adults.
Ultimately, the Court of Appeal further reduced Bayout’s sentence by a year, with Judge Pier Valerio Reinotti describing the MAO-A evidence as “particularly compelling.”
Upon a brief review of the scientific evidence, certain glaring problems with the court’s judgment quickly become apparent. Most obviously, the research showing an association between low MAO-A levels and violence tells us nothing about Bayout’s — or any specific individual’s — propensity for violence. Indeed, while a significant percentage of men with low MAO-A levels commit violent offences, the majority do not.
Yet the fact that the court allowed such evidence to influence its verdict suggests that neuroscience, while not eliminating criminal responsibility, might lead courts to conclude that defendants with certain neurological deficits are less responsible than those with “normal” brains.
There is, in fact, a precedent for this, and it’s one that few people question. Adolescents in virtually every country are subject to differential sentencing, and in many cases to an entirely separate system of justice, because their neurobiology renders them less blameworthy, less responsible than adults.
Indeed, while the limbic system, or emotional centre of the brain, is typically mature by the age of 16, the prefrontal cortex, which is associated with one’s capacity to control emotions, is not fully developed, in most people, until the early 20s. Hence according to what’s sometimes called the “two systems” theory, the imbalance in development of the limbic system and the PFC explains the risk taking and emotional behaviour that is characteristic of adolescence. And it justifies our treating adolescents as less responsible than adults.
There are, of course, substantial differences between adolescents and adults with neurological deficits, the most obvious being that most adolescents will outgrow the developmental imbalance. But the basic principle — that people who suffer from neurological aberrations that render them less capable of controlling their behaviour should be held less blameworthy — seems to have swayed the Italian Court of Appeal.
But not just the Italian Court of Appeal. While the “MAO-A defence” has been tried and failed in many courts around the world, recent research led by University of Utah psychologist Lisa Aspinwall suggests that many judges, when presented with neurobiological evidence, are inclined to reduce defendants’ sentences.
Read more

The ethical minefield of using neuroscience to prevent crime

On the evening of March 10, 2007, Abdelmalek Bayout, an Algerian citizen living in Italy, brutally stabbed to death Walter Perez, a fellow immigrant from Colombia. Bayout admitted to the crime, saying he was provoked by Perez, who ridiculed him for wearing eye makeup.

According to Nature magazine, Bayout’s defence argued that he was mentally ill at the time of the offence. The court accepted that argument and, although it found Bayout guilty of the crime, imposed on him a reduced prison sentence of nine years and two months.

Bayout nevertheless appealed the judgment, and the Court of Appeal ordered a new psychiatric report. That report showed, among other things, that Bayout had low levels of the neurotransmitter monoamine oxidase A (MAO-A) — an important development given that previous research discovered that men who had low MAO-A levels and who had been abused as children were more likely to be convicted of violent crimes as adults.

Ultimately, the Court of Appeal further reduced Bayout’s sentence by a year, with Judge Pier Valerio Reinotti describing the MAO-A evidence as “particularly compelling.”

Upon a brief review of the scientific evidence, certain glaring problems with the court’s judgment quickly become apparent. Most obviously, the research showing an association between low MAO-A levels and violence tells us nothing about Bayout’s — or any specific individual’s — propensity for violence. Indeed, while a significant percentage of men with low MAO-A levels commit violent offences, the majority do not.

Yet the fact that the court allowed such evidence to influence its verdict suggests that neuroscience, while not eliminating criminal responsibility, might lead courts to conclude that defendants with certain neurological deficits are less responsible than those with “normal” brains.

There is, in fact, a precedent for this, and it’s one that few people question. Adolescents in virtually every country are subject to differential sentencing, and in many cases to an entirely separate system of justice, because their neurobiology renders them less blameworthy, less responsible than adults.

Indeed, while the limbic system, or emotional centre of the brain, is typically mature by the age of 16, the prefrontal cortex, which is associated with one’s capacity to control emotions, is not fully developed, in most people, until the early 20s. Hence according to what’s sometimes called the “two systems” theory, the imbalance in development of the limbic system and the PFC explains the risk taking and emotional behaviour that is characteristic of adolescence. And it justifies our treating adolescents as less responsible than adults.

There are, of course, substantial differences between adolescents and adults with neurological deficits, the most obvious being that most adolescents will outgrow the developmental imbalance. But the basic principle — that people who suffer from neurological aberrations that render them less capable of controlling their behaviour should be held less blameworthy — seems to have swayed the Italian Court of Appeal.

But not just the Italian Court of Appeal. While the “MAO-A defence” has been tried and failed in many courts around the world, recent research led by University of Utah psychologist Lisa Aspinwall suggests that many judges, when presented with neurobiological evidence, are inclined to reduce defendants’ sentences.

Read more

Filed under brain neurotransmitters MAO-A neurological deficits crime prefrontal cortex neuroscience science

  1. erasethestigma reblogged this from neurosciencestuff and added:
    Holy crap… Minority Report will come to fruition!!! No where to run, guys! Tom Cruise looks too good doing it so he’ll...
  2. dermoosealini reblogged this from neurosciencestuff
  3. pharmuscidea reblogged this from neurosciencestuff
  4. saraahlynne reblogged this from neurosciencestuff
  5. privatepersonalblog reblogged this from neurosciencestuff
  6. psychandcrime reblogged this from neurosciencestuff and added:
    The ethical minefield of using neuroscience to prevent crime On the evening of March 10, 2007, Abdelmalek Bayout, an...
  7. unzipmygenes reblogged this from neurosciencestuff
  8. brainstufffyi4dew0319 reblogged this from neurosciencestuff
  9. loch-tess-monster reblogged this from cat-bountry
  10. cat-bountry reblogged this from neurosciencestuff
  11. erehgnihtemos reblogged this from neurosciencestuff
  12. george-allan reblogged this from neurosciencestuff
  13. chiedegozaru reblogged this from robintheghost
  14. artender00 reblogged this from neurosciencestuff
  15. catspiritanimal reblogged this from neurosciencestuff
  16. thephilosoferret reblogged this from neurosciencestuff
  17. ehlerslalos reblogged this from neurosciencestuff
  18. robintheghost reblogged this from neurosciencestuff
  19. pulpless-fiction reblogged this from neurosciencestuff
  20. heckaballer reblogged this from neurosciencestuff
  21. lizzigator reblogged this from neurosciencestuff
free counters