Blame the Brain?
Forensic Psychologist Steven K. Erickson sent me a link to his excellent article entitled Blaming the Brain. The article takes a look at the emerging field of neurolaw and how it "promises a more humane and just criminal justice system, yet there is ample reason to believe otherwise."
Labels: forensic psychology
posted by Helen at 5:54 AM
10 Comments:
can you say medicate?
My brain made me do it.
The article takes a look at the emerging field of neurolaw and how it "promises a more humane and just criminal justice system, yet there is ample reason to believe otherwise."
The very presence of lawyers is ample reason to believe otherwise.
lawyers? good christ, run.....
Evan.....humor!
From the Abstract, "... in favor of a prediction model heavily influenced by the behavioral sciences."
Sounds like they propose to apply their model to each of us, and for those of us which the model says are about to do something bad, well we will have to be "reprogrammed," or some such. Sort of a preventative punishment before the fact, so that you don't do anything really bad. How scary is that?
This comment has been removed by the author.
This (from the Website Dr. Helen links to) is ridiculous:
"This mixture of cognitive neuroscience and law suggests that long established conceptions of human agency and responsibility are fundamentally at odds with the findings of science. Using sophisticated technology, cognitive neuroscience claims to be upon the threshold of unraveling the mysteries of the mind by elucidating the mechanical nature of the brain."
If there is no free will, there cannot be such a thing as "true" or "false" there is only "stuff in your head." And then there is no such thing as science, and the "conclusions" of Erikson, et. al. are nothing but hot air.
Determinism is self-refuting.
I see that -- due to a brain-dead, lack-of-sleep, in-a-hurry state -- my comment (viz., the second paragraph) from earlier today might seem confused. I don't mean to attack Erickson or say he is a determinist (especially as I have not read his paper!!), but only to say that by determinism, *all* conclusions are "hot air." If Erickson is attacking determinism, more power to him...if he is attacking it for the right reasons, that is...
Determinism is self refuting.
Is that sort of like those new fangled car tires that seal themselves after a puncture?
I need more coffee.
Post a Comment
<< Home