# Biological Determinism and Criminality



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

As is quite reasonable for what we knew when we set up our justice systems, the general assumption made when convicting mentally stable criminals is that all humans have the same capacity to recognise and abide by the law. However, from what I've been reading lately, it seems that the varying structures of our brains - affected both biologically and environmentally (socio-economic status even has a self-perpetuating affect on brain strucure!) - indicate that, in fact, each individual has a different threshold for following the law.

Here's an intriguing example. Apparently, up to 25% of men on death row in the U.S. have a history of concussive damage to the front of the head. It has also been demonstrated that damage to the frontal cortex when an adult can cause severe disinhibition, leading to anything from endless playing of rag-times on the piano to kidnapping, imprisoning, and raping a woman before driving her home calmly and telling her you had a good time and would like to see her again (that's an actual example). When the frontal cortex is damaged at different stages in childhood, the fundamental sense of right and wrong can be severely impaired or even non-existent.

So if we take the extreme example of a man in his 40s with no criminal history, loved by his community, who, one day, is involved in an accident and has 100% of his frontal cortex destroyed while surviving (which is possible), who then commits a spree of killings without even attempting to cover his tracks because it doesn't occur to him that what he's doing is wrong, it's clear enough that the man has to be charged with regards to his 'organic impairment' and reduced responsibility.

But then we run into the impossible question. What of the man with 95% damage to the frontal cortex? What of the woman with 80% damage to the frontal cortex? And down and down you go until you ask yourself, what of the 1%, 2%, 3% differences in frontal cortex function inherent to all healthy people in the population?

We often assume that a criminal is a product of an abusive or otherwise difficult environment, and that is certainly true _to an extent_, but it is also becoming increasingly evident that, due to complex neurological interactions, some people are simply more predisposed to transgressing the laws of our society. Where are we to draw the line in who is granted a little mercy in their sentencing due to the inexorable 'faults' of their brain?


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Nit-picking. Beak them all


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

The politicians have already decided. They've withdrew funding and closed down numerous state run mental hospitals around the country in favor of locking up the mentally ill in the prison system. This is a crime!


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

starthrower said:


> The politicians have already decided. They've withdrew funding and closed down numerous state run mental hospitals around the country in favor of locking up the mentally ill in the prison system. This is a crime!


And all it takes is public indignation for the legal system to bend towards corruption, as with the case of John Hinckley Jr. shooting Reagan, found not guilty by reason of insanity, which didn't meet well with public approval (despite the insanity defence being used in 2% of felonies and failing most of the time) so Congress rewrote the law, while three states abolished it entirely. Who the **** is in charge?


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Polednice said:


> Who the **** is in charge?


The cold blooded profiteers who have bought and paid for our "leadership".


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Unfortunately the criminal justice system in America just doesnt work. We do better in Europe.

The US prison population per 100,000 is 738, while the average prison population/100,000 in the EU is 103. This while crime statistics in the EU and the US are comparable, the EU having slightly higher rates, but the US surpassing us greatly in violent crime.


----------



## Fsharpmajor (Dec 14, 2008)

The XYY aneuploidy (having an extra Y chromosome) has long been discussed as a possible cause of antisocial and criminal behaviour in males:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xyy_syndrome

It's biologically determined for sure (though not inherited), but the behavioural aspects of having it are much less clear. Like Down's Syndrome and the various other disorders involving chromosome number, it can be screened for early on in pregnancy. The problem, as seen under a microscope, is obvious, but it doesn't necessarily mean that you are going to give birth to a psychopathic little monster.

Brain damage can, and has, been blamed for all sorts of things, but every case of brain damage by accident (such as a bullet through the head) is different from all the others, so I can't really think of any way to generalize it.


----------



## Guest (Feb 5, 2012)

Delete all crims or use them as cannon fodder


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

All that a judge can do in these cases is lower the threshold for what is "normal." If the behaviour with a person is deemed normal or understandable, etc. in relation to the "norm" of people with that type of brain damage, well the judge has to make his recommendations to the jury based on that. It's a tough one because not all people with these types of injuries will commit a serious crime, it's not inevitable. I don't know, just thinking out aloud here. Of course, each crime has individual factors that come together to provide the big picture of how to punish it or how the system deals with it. & how that happens, as people have said, is far from perfect.

One of the reasons I would never be a judge...or a criminal lawyer...or a prison guard...& the list can go on and on...


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

http://nplusonemag.com/raise-the-crime-rate

Our crazy leftist magazines are crazier than your crazy leftist magazines.

On topic: I don't think that extreme, hypothetical scenarios should be the basis of moral theory.

That's why analytic philosophy is such an epic fail.

"intriguing example." - Intriguing scenarios require intriguing decisions by intriguing judges, but 99.9% of cases aren't intriguing.


----------



## Guest (Feb 9, 2012)

The safety of the community must be the first consideration nothing else maters.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

brianwalker said:


> http://nplusonemag.com/raise-the-crime-rate
> 
> Our crazy leftist magazines are crazier than your crazy leftist magazines.
> 
> ...


What a fascinating way to dodge the question and support your biases. This isn't hypothetical claptrap, this is neuroscience.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Andante said:


> The safety of the community must be the first consideration nothing else maters.


What is the community? I would agree that non-criminals must be kept safe, but criminals are part of the human community and have a right to understanding and appropriate treatment.


----------



## Igneous01 (Jan 27, 2011)

i agree with poly on this one, people should all have the same rights to be respected or atleast understood for their actions. Even the criminally insane or sane. Its kind of funny how we as humans sit on top of the grande chair judging and deciding for our fellow humans what is right and what is not, only to fall off that chair as a reality check. 

Maybe every human being on the planet should be forced into 1 week of solitude, we would probably better understand ourselves...


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I've largely solved the problems of religion, philosophy, and politics to my own satisfaction, so perhaps it's time to turn toward law. I'll look into this.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

I read today that an 18-year-old girl gagged, strangled, and stabbed her 9-year-old neighbour, and later wrote in her diary that it was amazing.

This is a prime example of this stuff. Naturally, I feel nothing but the most heart-breaking pity for the innocent 9-year-old child who suffered in a way that no human should ever have to suffer. I also feel utter contempt for the 18-year-old who has no concept of empathy.

But therein lies the problem - the 18-year-old is likely psychotic and deranged, and, though this will have been brought about through a complex interaction of biology and environment, it's not entirely her fault. The traditional view is that the 18-year-old is as capable of acknowledging and acting out right and wrong just the same as the rest of us, and for behaving so despicably, should accordingly rot in jail. Our new picture, however, dictates that that is not the full story.

I don't really know what the solution to this is. Should she go to jail? Hell yeah! For the safety of others, that's absolutely necessary. But I think we also have to make a mental note of our outrage and hatred for her, and move on to consider that it's not entirely her fault. I think jail, at least for her, should be like a collection zone for severely damaged human beings who cannot function safely in society, rather than a cesspit into which we throw all the criminals that we hate.


----------



## Igneous01 (Jan 27, 2011)

For some strange reason I feel pity for the 18 year old girl in your story rather than for the 9 year old neighbor she killed. Maybe I watch too much Dexter.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Igneous01 said:


> For some strange reason I feel pity for the 18 year old girl in your story rather than for the 9 year old neighbor she killed. Maybe I watch too much Dexter.


"as well as" might have been weird, but "rather than" necessitates a visit to the doctor!


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

Polednice said:


> What a fascinating way to dodge the question and support your biases. This isn't hypothetical claptrap, this is neuroscience.


"Neuroscience".

I'm not sure how modern neuroscience has contributed to our moral knowledge in any way whatsoever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_mental_disorders#Greek_and_Roman

The attribution of mental illnesses to factors outside of a person's control i.e. his or her agency is well known.

Yes, we've discovered all these new chemicals, and we have names for the parts of the brain, the different cortex-s and whatnot, but I don't see how this is philosophically new.

I'm sure legal scholars and legislators have debated this to death a million times over, and that I trust the current laws are just and proper.

I don't see a fundamental divide between those who are mentally ill and those who are "rational" criminals. Aren't these "rational" criminals also a product of their fate?



> "You are not sufficiently democratic," answered the policeman, "but you were right when you said just now that our ordinary treatment of the poor criminal was a pretty brutal business. I tell you I am sometimes sick of my trade when I see how perpetually it means merely a war upon the ignorant and the desperate. But this new movement of ours is a very different affair. We deny the snobbish English assumption that the uneducated are the dangerous criminals. We remember the Roman Emperors. We remember the great poisoning princes of the Renaissance. We say that the dangerous criminal is the educated criminal. We say that the most dangerous criminal now is the entirely lawless modern philosopher. Compared to him, burglars and bigamists are essentially moral men; my heart goes out to them. They accept the essential ideal of man; they merely seek it wrongly. Thieves respect property. They merely wish the property to become their property that they may more perfectly respect it. But philosophers dislike property as property; they wish to destroy the very idea of personal possession. Bigamists respect marriage, or they would not go through the highly ceremonial and even ritualistic formality of bigamy. But philosophers despise marriage as marriage. Murderers respect human life; they merely wish to attain a greater fulness of human life in themselves by the sacrifice of what seems to them to be lesser lives. But philosophers hate life itself, their own as much as other people's."
> Syme struck his hands together.
> 
> "How true that is," he cried. "I have felt it from my boyhood, but never could state the verbal antithesis. *The common criminal is a bad man, but at least he is, as it were, a conditional good man. He says that if only a certain obstacle be removed -- say a wealthy uncle -- he is then prepared to accept the universe and to praise God. *He is a reformer, but not an anarchist. He wishes to cleanse the edifice, but not to destroy it. But the evil philosopher is not trying to alter things, but to annihilate them. Yes, the modern world has retained all those parts of police work which are really oppressive and ignominious, the harrying of the poor, the spying upon the unfortunate. It has given up its more dignified work, the punishment of powerful traitors in the State and powerful heresiarchs in the Church. The moderns say we must not punish heretics. My only doubt is whether we have a right to punish anybody else."


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

OK then! Thanks for your contribution brian!

*turns round and slits wrists*


----------



## Fsharpmajor (Dec 14, 2008)

brianwalker said:


> I don't see a fundamental divide between those who are mentally ill and those who are "rational" criminals. Aren't these "rational" criminals also a product of their fate?


For me to try to answer that question, you'll have to tell me me exactly what you think fate is. Fate is not a concept that is used very much in science these days, with good reason--namely, that arguments based on it tend to be both self-serving and circular, in roughly equal measure.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

Polednice said:


> OK then! Thanks for your contribution brian!
> 
> *turns round and slits wrists*


I don't think questions of justice should be grounded in the abstract unless the people discussing the question are the founders of a new civilization.

I think the question could be better addressed if you linked a new, cutting edge academic paper that tackled the issue, since that paper will have already acknowledged the relative merits of the various schools of thought on a question as complicated as crime and punishment.

I know this is as frustrating as if we were two Austrians or Russians discussing the revolution in France, and you're sympathetic to the plights of the peasants but I pour cold water on everybody by reciting Burke over and over again.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

brianwalker said:


> I don't think questions of justice should be grounded in the abstract unless the people discussing the question are the founders of a new civilization.


And this is how tyrannies go unquestioned and untackled.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

Polednice said:


> And this is how tyrannies go unquestioned and untackled.


The most grotesque tyrannies are the 20th century tyrannies founded upon by misguided revolutionaries who, armed with speculative philosophy, thought that their thoughts was superior to the accumulated wisdom of thousands of years of tradition.

The tyranny of progress has devastated far more lives than the tyranny of tradition.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

brianwalker said:


> The most grotesque tyrannies are the 20th century tyrannies founded upon by misguided revolutionaries who, armed with speculative philosophy, thought that their thoughts was superior to the accumulated wisdom of thousands of years of tradition.
> 
> The tyranny of progress has devastated far more lives than the tyranny of tradition.


Hahahaha! You're amusing. Is this Poe?


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

Polednice said:


> Hahahaha! You're amusing. Is this Poe?


Poe? Edgar Allen?

I've never read him.


----------



## Guest (Feb 10, 2012)

Polednice said:


> What is the community?


 don't nit pick


> I would agree that non-criminals must be kept safe, but criminals are part of the human community and have a right to understanding and appropriate treatment.


Oh they are understood alright and deserve the appropriate treatment but your idea of treatment may differ from mine it also depends upon the offence I couldn't give a toss what you do do with petty crims at their first offence so long as they don't re offend, but for serious offences then all rights have been forfeted and they must be removed from our community and ponder the error of their ways.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Should not have started this topic. Will not return.


----------



## Guest (Feb 10, 2012)

Oh come on don't take things to heart, in the good old days the English sent their unwanted to Aussie perhaps in the future we will send them to Mars. What would you do with someone that tortured a young Girl to death, or some one that killed a child in front of the Parents or someone that was on their 40th grievous assault charge you can't just go on making excuses for people.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Andante said:


> Oh come on don't take things to heart, in the good old days the English sent their unwanted to Aussie perhaps in the future we will send them to Mars. What would you do with someone that tortured a young Girl to death, or some one that killed a child in front of the Parents or someone that was on their 40th grievous assault charge you can't just go on making excuses for people.


I'm not making excuses, and you're not reading what I'm saying.


----------



## Guest (Feb 11, 2012)

Polednice said:


> I'm not making excuses, and you're not reading what I'm saying.


I am reading your posts but perhaps I have the wrong meaning so what do you suggest we do with the crims? brain damaged or not.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Andante said:


> I am reading your posts but perhaps I have the wrong meaning so what do you suggest we do with the crims? brain damaged or not.


You might not have noticed this:



Polednice said:


> Should she go to jail? Hell yeah! For the safety of others, that's absolutely necessary. But I think we also have to make a mental note of our outrage and hatred for her, and move on to consider that it's not entirely her fault. I think jail, at least for her, should be like a collection zone for severely damaged human beings who cannot function safely in society, rather than a cesspit into which we throw all the criminals that we hate.


To me, that seems pretty clear. But I wonder if you are asking about something else?


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Andante said:


> I am reading your posts but perhaps I have the wrong meaning so what do you suggest we do with the crims? brain damaged or not.


See science above for clarification.


----------



## Guest (Feb 12, 2012)

Oh OK here we go again. I am not familiar with the details of this young female murderess and you have not provided any but you said you were not making excuses


Polednice said:


> I read today that an 18-year-old girl gagged, strangled, and stabbed her 9-year-old neighbour, and later wrote in her diary that it was amazing.
> 
> This is a prime example of this stuff. Naturally, I feel nothing but the most heart-breaking pity for the innocent 9-year-old child who suffered in a way that no human should ever have to suffer. I also feel utter contempt for the 18-year-old who has no concept of empathy.
> 
> ...


now to me that is making an excuse with the suggestion that she should be treated differently, now is that what you mean or not ?


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

Polednice said:


> And this is how tyrannies go unquestioned and untackled.


I think a lot of things are tyrannical, in fact, I think that your mode of thinking, and this kind of thinking is responsible for the greatest atrocities that are emergent in society today. I think the kind of thinking exemplified in your post, which disguises itself as a love of justice, is monumentally misguided and is in fact in service of the greatest tyranny. I think it's the mode of thinking and the assumptions and mode of thought intrinsic to and embedded in your post that allows tyranny to reign.

I know you have good intentions. [Insert hoary Johnson quote here].

Do not think that I am "satisfied" with how the things are. I am far more unsatisfied than you.

If you ask, what in the devils are you talking about?

http://www.archive.org/stream/Heide...idegger-LetterOnhumanism1949#page/n0/mode/2up

Your attempt to pass off YOUR OPINIONS about other opinions as FACT and UNIVERSAL TRUTH is tyrannical.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

brianwalker said:


> I think a lot of things are tyrannical, in fact, I think that your mode of thinking, and this kind of thinking is responsible for the greatest atrocities that are emergent in society today. I think the kind of thinking exemplified in your post, which disguises itself as a love of justice, is monumentally misguided and is in fact in service of the greatest tyranny. I think it's the mode of thinking and the assumptions and mode of thought intrinsic to and embedded in your post that allows tyranny to reign.


Oh dear me, you are an amusing excuse for a human being.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

Polednice said:


> Oh dear me, you are an amusing excuse for a human being.


You know, Polednice, words can be very hurtful. There are many incidents of teen suicide that result from the war of words.

http://news.stanford.edu/pr/92/920212Arc2432.html

Words are so hurtful that our society deems it necessary to have many laws regulating hurtful words.

I hurt by your words, and I demand an apology.

What if I committed suicide over your words? Wouldn't you be very sorry?

EDIT: The mention of the word "suicide" is rhetorical.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

brianwalker said:


> You know, Polednice, words can be very hurtful. There are many incidents of teen suicide that result from the war of words.
> 
> http://news.stanford.edu/pr/92/920212Arc2432.html
> 
> ...


Insults can be cruel, but what society regulates is incitement of hatred and violence. Teens who commit suicide do so not just because they are called nasty names, but because they are systematically bullied for identifying (or being accused of identifying) with a group that right wing religious bigots institutionally stigmatise and demonise in an attempt to push their primitive morality down the throats of the unwilling.

Your characterisations of every social issue I have seen you comment on are simplistic to the point of wilful ignorance. React as you wish to my statements, I'm not apologising.


----------



## Fsharpmajor (Dec 14, 2008)

brianwalker said:


> I think a lot of things are tyrannical, in fact, I think that your mode of thinking, and this kind of thinking is responsible for the greatest atrocities that are emergent in society today. I think the kind of thinking exemplified in your post, which disguises itself as a love of justice, is monumentally misguided and is in fact in service of the greatest tyranny. I think it's the mode of thinking and the assumptions and mode of thought intrinsic to and embedded in your post that allows tyranny to reign.


Well, what mode of thinking? Atheism, agnosticism, secularism and socialism come to mind, but they are four different things. (They all have a certain degree of merit, though).

You need to state precisely what you think the tyranny that's embedded in modern society actually is.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Fsharpmajor said:


> Well, what mode of thinking? Atheism, agnosticism, secularism and socialism come to mind, but they are four different things. (They all have a certain degree of merit, though).


But they're all EVIL.


----------



## Fsharpmajor (Dec 14, 2008)

Flagged up his post for the mods to look at because of his mention of suicide.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

Polednice said:


> Insults can be cruel, but what society regulates is incitement of hatred and violence.


So demonizing rich people should also fall under "hate speech" then? Because it incites hatred and violence?

What constitutes a "marginalized group"? Who decides who is marginal?

Is it you, Polednice?


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

Fsharpmajor said:


> Well, what mode of thinking? Atheism, agnosticism, secularism and socialism come to mind, but they are four different things. (They all have a certain degree of merit, though).
> 
> You need to state precisely what you think the tyranny that's embedded in modern society actually is.


http://www.archive.org/stream/Heide...idegger-LetterOnhumanism1949#page/n0/mode/2up


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Fsharpmajor said:


> Flagged up his post for the mods to look at because of his mention of suicide.


His edit says it was rhetorical.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

brianwalker said:


> So demonizing rich people should also fall under "hate speech" then? Because it incites hatred and violence?


If it incites hatred and violence, and rich people are attacked or are committing suicide, then yes. Of course, what you fail (/refuse) to recognise is that hysteria over income inequality and any resultant demonisation of the rich is a totally different world to religious stigma which indoctrinates children into believing that certain people are going to burn for certain acts.



brianwalker said:


> What constitutes a "marginalized group"? Who decides who is marginal?


I didn't say anything about marginalisatinon.



brianwalker said:


> Is it you, Polednice?


It's me in some ways, and it's not me in other ways.


----------



## Guest (Feb 14, 2012)

Jeeeez and I thought I was confused ................ We all have to make a decision before we act .............. if any one wants to go to the next life go right ahead but don't blame me.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

Polednice said:


> If it incites hatred and violence, and rich people are attacked or are committing suicide, then yes. Of course, what you fail (/refuse) to recognise is that hysteria over income inequality and any resultant demonisation of the rich is a totally different world to religious stigma which indoctrinates children into believing that certain people are going to burn for certain acts.


1. How do we measure how much a group is "attacked"? What is attacked? For example, was Salman Rushdie under "attack" after writing the Satanic Verses? 
2. If suicide the measure of how much "under attack" a group is? I.e. if the group members do not commit suicide, they are therefore not under attack? This brings me back to point 1. Salman Rushdie did not commit suicide, it is sensible to say that he was "not attacked"? 
3. Is physical damage the measure of attackedness? Say that the rich are the target of various forms of "attack", but they protect themselves with bodyguards, safety precautions, etc, in the same way that Salman Rushdie went into hiding. Are they thus "less" under attack because of the precautions? 
4. What is the essential, irrefutable, incontrovertible difference between the religious stigma and the demonization of the rich? 
5. Back to the question of marginalization; which groups do we protect i.e., how do we decide what kind of rhetoric is appropriate or not vis-a-vis the intended attacked target of the rhetoric?

6. What is the essential difference between saying that "you are a sorry excuse for a human being" and "gay people are a sorry excuse for a human being" that makes one statement excusable but the other inexcusable?


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

I actually bothered to type a lengthy reply, but forget it. You're a lost cause and it's not my job to try to fix you.


----------



## Guest (Feb 15, 2012)

Your reply came through in it entirety old chap and it is very hard to make sense of it.


----------



## Fsharpmajor (Dec 14, 2008)

brianwalker said:


> 6. What is the essential difference between saying that "you are a sorry excuse for a human being" and "gay people are a sorry excuse for a human being" that makes one statement excusable but the other inexcusable?


Put simply, it's the difference between criticizing somebody for their actions, or attacking them for what they naturally are and can't change. For example, criticizing Obama for his foreign policy would be excusable. Making deprecatory remarks about the colour of his skin would not.


----------

