somewhat. i'm saying it doesn't make a difference. that can't be fixed. wouldn't determinism say that? psychopaths/sociopaths are already mythically good at mimicking "normal" humane reactions to status. they are often described as very charismatic and sympathetic people. they already know what is acceptable and not. there is no amount of therapy that can convince them they should obey.
Not as of yet. Although, empathy is possible by mirror neurons. Something that psychopaths might not have. I believe these mirror neurons are found in the prefrontal cortex or other frontal regions. If these neurons are destroyed by trauma, such as child abuse, then we may find ways of reinstating them. Hyperstimulation is an option being explored. In either case, executing the subjects will make them impossible to study. Through study we can learn how these incidents occur. If it turns out that child abuse is a determining factor, which it clearly is. Then people should stop abusing their children.
I had a conversation with a coworker yesterday who states "The best way to get a kid to do what you want is to smack them upside the head." That is what I would call physical child abuse. Of course, I've studied Developmental Psychology, so I already know it's a bad idea. Unfortunately, not everyone, barely anyone, takes the time to study such subjects.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
That is ignoring sociological factors. The list includes biological factors which are typically catalyzed by some sociological events. The realm of collective responsibility.
What we have learned about criminals we have learned from criminals that are alive. Executing them puts an end to studying them. By studying them we can develop treatments and preventative measures. Also, if society by and large wasn't so damn selfish, they could learn some responsibility from criminology as well.
The matter of victims is entirely separate. It's understandable that a victim will want vengeance, but is that reason enough to end another life, a life that could have a chance? Especially when we know part of the responsibility for that life is ours.
Again, where do we draw the line?
If a rich woman impulsively steals items from a high-priced store. She will likely be diagnosed as kleptomaniac and absolved of the responsibility.
However, if a poor woman impulsively steals bread from a supermarket because she is hungry. She will be sentenced to jail.
Where is the continuity? How do we determine intended crime from unintended crime? If the schizophrenic kills someone because he thinks they are from the FBI to kill him, is it different than the hormonally imbalanced and physically abused 20 year old boy that murders someone in heat of an argument?
Where do you draw the line of mental illness? When we now know that the brain is the device of which the mind is only a process. The mind is entirely at the mercy of the brain.
your example about the two women reveals nothing about analyzing criminal motives. it reveals a lot about the susceptibility of the justice system to abuse, especially by the wealthy. i would say 1) the rich woman deserves more jailtime. 2) i don't think your outcome would be the case in reality. mitigating factors are already considered in most cases and treatment for mental illness is included when deciding sentences. the problem is not that such factors are not recognized and considered. the problem is that it is VERY expensive to do this and the system has limited resources. sure, in an ideal world, every criminal would receive a full psychiatric evaluation and be given a chance for a full-scale therapy program to avert incarceration. however, that's not the world we live in. in such an ideal world, nobody would go hungry and no one would grow up in an environment that would push someone to such behaviors.
Not as of yet. Although, empathy is possible by mirror neurons. Something that psychopaths might not have. I believe these mirror neurons are found in the prefrontal cortex or other frontal regions. If these neurons are destroyed by trauma, such as child abuse, then we may find ways of reinstating them. Hyperstimulation is an option being explored. In either case, executing the subjects will make them impossible to study. Through study we can learn how these incidents occur. If it turns out that child abuse is a determining factor, which it clearly is. Then people should stop abusing their children.
I had a conversation with a coworker yesterday who states "The best way to get a kid to do what you want is to smack them upside the head." That is what I would call physical child abuse. Of course, I've studied Developmental Psychology, so I already know it's a bad idea. Unfortunately, not everyone, barely anyone, takes the time to study such subjects.
dude, if people want to abuse their kids, they're going to. i rather doubt showing them a study of death row inmates that proves abuse might make them a psychopath is going to prevent the kind of person willing to beat a child from actually doing it.
funny how since you disagree with the book's conclusions on sex factors, it might be wrong on that point. but we're all supposed to just accept that it is right on every other point becos you agree with the rest of them.
I've also done extensive reading and cross-referencing on this subject. It is widely believed that testosterone is a biological factor. I won't argue that it isn't. It most certainly is. But sociological factors are determining as well. When I see from statistics Canada that women are more 'aggressive' in 11 catagories, mainly with weapons, it calls into question this. But as the article also states oestrogen/estrogen may also be a biological factor, and I think that's probably true. Culture/Society as stated is a major factor, probably a catalyzing factor. Clearly Canadian and Australian cultures differ, maybe not in huge detectable ways, but this system is chaotic and determining the actual sociological causes is a difficult matter indeed.
The point is, you and 810wme are unsophisticated when it comes to criminology and I don't expect you will know this stuff or even be able to argue these points. Which is why the moral question of execution should be the domain of more sophisticated people, more sophisticated than myself as well. Most countries, and Amensty International have denounced capital punishment. It's high-time the United States does so as well.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
your example about the two women reveals nothing about analyzing criminal motives. it reveals a lot about the susceptibility of the justice system to abuse, especially by the wealthy. i would say 1) the rich woman deserves more jailtime. 2) i don't think your outcome would be the case in reality. mitigating factors are already considered in most cases and treatment for mental illness is included when deciding sentences. the problem is not that such factors are not recognized and considered. the problem is that it is VERY expensive to do this and the system has limited resources. sure, in an ideal world, every criminal would receive a full psychiatric evaluation and be given a chance for a full-scale therapy program to avert incarceration. however, that's not the world we live in. in such an ideal world, nobody would go hungry and no one would grow up in an environment that would push someone to such behaviors.
Look. We've been down this road before, and I know you aspire to be a crown attorney which is already indicative on your view of criminals. It's relatively easy to infer from an attorney's role, whether they are crown, defense or corporate, what type of personality they have, or their views of criminals and the justice system. I'm also aware of your ideology, which is contrary to the evidence I've provided. So discussing this with you is actually quite futile.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
dude, if people want to abuse their kids, they're going to. i rather doubt showing them a study of death row inmates that proves abuse might make them a psychopath is going to prevent the kind of person willing to beat a child from actually doing it.
And that becomes justification for execution?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I've also done extensive reading and cross-referencing on this subject. It is widely believed that testosterone is a biological factor. I won't argue that it isn't. It most certainly is. But sociological factors are determining as well. When I see from statistics Canada that women are more 'aggressive' in 11 catagories, mainly with weapons, it calls into question this. But as the article also states oestrogen/estrogen may also be a biological factor, and I think that's probably true. Culture/Society as stated is a major factor, probably a catalyzing factor. Clearly Canadian and Australian cultures differ, maybe not in huge detectable ways, but this system is chaotic and determining the actual sociological causes is a difficult matter indeed.
The point is, you and 810wme are unsophisticated when it comes to criminology and I don't expect you will know this stuff or even be able to argue these points. Which is why the moral question of execution should be the domain of more sophisticated people, more sophisticated than myself as well. Most countries, and Amensty International have denounced capital punishment. It's high-time the United States does so as well.
know what stuff or argue what points? i oppose capital punishment as much as you do. what has that got to do with sophistication. in fact, i'd argue that i am more sophisticated than you becos your analysis is lab-restricted and you can only talk about one particular, narrow, and limited aspect of the debate: factors influencing criminal behavior. that is only one small part of the topic as to how we respond to criminals in society and there are many factors you seem incapable of accounting for... the realities of which i am constantly speaking: human fallibity, complex social systems, limited justice resources, etc. yours is the unsophisticated response. you can tell me what lab reports say causes crime. but you cannot give me a single concrete idea as to what to do about it in the real world.
Look. We've been down this road before, and I know you aspire to be a crown attorney which is already indicative on your view of criminals. It's relatively easy to infer from an attorney's role, whether they are crown, defense or corporate, what type of personality they have, or their views of criminals and the justice system. I'm also aware of your ideology, which is contrary to the evidence I've provided. So discussing this with you is actually quite futile.
what's a crown attorney? i actually aspire to be a transactional lawyer... fancy word for helping people make business details. i'm a big picture kind of guy.
my ideology? im curious what you think it is. my ideology is simply that concern for criminal rehabilitation needs to be balanced against other important considerations like social safety.
no. i'm opposed to capital punishment. did you miss that part? i'm just saying it's ridiculous to claim that diagnosing death row inmates is somehow going to prevent child abuse. medical science has shown that smoking will give you cancer and kill you. people still smoke and more people start every day.
know what stuff or argue what points? i oppose capital punishment as much as you do. what has that got to do with sophistication. in fact, i'd argue that i am more sophisticated than you becos your analysis is lab-restricted and you can only talk about one particular, narrow, and limited aspect of the debate: factors influencing criminal behavior. that is only one small part of the topic as to how we respond to criminals in society and there are many factors you seem incapable of accounting for... the realities of which i am constantly speaking: human fallibity, complex social systems, limited justice resources, etc. yours is the unsophisticated response. you can tell me what lab reports say causes crime. but you cannot give me a single concrete idea as to what to do about it in the real world.
I certainly can. We need a program to raise awareness. To inform the public on the causes and prevention of crime, especially violent crime. We need new social paradigms on crime. As for the justice system, we need to eliminate capital punishment, revamp the appeals process, so the appeal officers are trained professionals in criminology, and we need to revamp the institutions we house criminals in. Jails should be more like mental health institutions, with physicians monitoring rehabilitation and reporting to the appeals officers. The jails are already taking in mentally ill people who have been released into the public by the closing of asylums all across the U.S.. The jails have had to take on that responsibility already, so it's two-fold the adaptation of jails to a more humane system, like that of a mental health institution. The public is still safe, security is still insured, however the treatment and rehabilitation of criminals is far more scientific and humane.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
what's a crown attorney? i actually aspire to be a transactional lawyer... fancy word for helping people make business details. i'm a big picture kind of guy.
my ideology? im curious what you think it is. my ideology is simply that concern for criminal rehabilitation needs to be balanced against other important considerations like social safety.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I certainly can. We need a program to raise awareness. To inform the public on the causes and prevention of crime, especially violent crime. We need new social paradigms on crime. As for the justice system, we need to eliminate capital punishment, revamp the appeals process, so the appeal officers are trained professionals in criminology, and we need to revamp the institutions we house criminals in. Jails should be more like mental health institutions, with physicians monitoring rehabilitation and reporting to the appeals officers. The jails are already taking in mentally ill people who have been released into the public by the closing of asylums all across the U.S.. The jails have had to take on that responsibility already, so it's two-fold the adaptation of jails to a more humane system, like that of a mental health institution. The public is still safe, security is still insured, however the treatment and rehabilitation of criminals is far more scientific and humane.
so you don't think the people in charge of interpreting laws should be trained in the law? putting criminologists in the appeals process would change nothing. you still have an isolated elite making decisions on people's lives. i think you mean you want the input of criminologists in writing the laws governing sentencing guidelines and mitigating factors.
as to the jails, i can somewhat get on board with that. though i don't know how effective it would be. jails already have plenty of remedial programs. they offer counseling and education. people don't take advantage of it though.
so you don't think the people in charge of interpreting laws should be trained in the law? putting criminologists in the appeals process would change nothing. you still have an isolated elite making decisions on people's lives. i think you mean you want the input of criminologists in writing the laws governing sentencing guidelines and mitigating factors.
as to the jails, i can somewhat get on board with that. though i don't know how effective it would be. jails already have plenty of remedial programs. they offer counseling and education. people don't take advantage of it though.
Well, the law, is only the law. It's a set of precedents. It evolves and is not set in stone. Law should be adaptive depending on the particular case and it's antecedents. But, all-in-all, changing our perspective of "crime" should be beneficial. Crime should not be stigmatized as it is.
The jails themselves, the environments are sufficient to cause mental illness. So that needs to change as well. If the prisons are willing to work with the inmates, instead of work against them, then the inmates should be more willing to cooperate. There should be input from psychologists on the restructuring of the jails.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
The point is, you and 810wme are unsophisticated when it comes to criminology and I don't expect you will know this stuff or even be able to argue these points. Which is why the moral question of execution should be the domain of more sophisticated people, more sophisticated than myself as well. Most countries, and Amensty International have denounced capital punishment. It's high-time the United States does so as well.
That's probably one of the more ridiculous things I have heard on the entire internet. To suggest that people can't debate important issues because they are not experts in them is crazy. I guess since I am not a criminologist I shouldn't be discussing this. In turn I am not an economist so I shouldn't ever discuss the economy. I am not an MD so I should never debate health care issues. I am not a general so I probably shouldn't discuss any wars or military missions. If people only talked about subjects they were complete experts on, how would anyone hear new opinions or learn new things?
That's probably one of the more ridiculous things I have heard on the entire internet. To suggest that people can't debate important issues because they are not experts in them is crazy. I guess since I am not a criminologist I shouldn't be discussing this. In turn I am not an economist so I shouldn't ever discuss the economy. I am not an MD so I should never debate health care issues. I am not a general so I probably shouldn't discuss any wars or military missions. If people only talked about subjects they were complete experts on, how would anyone hear new opinions or learn new things?
Good one. My words should have been "set policy" not debate. But since this is an issue often voted on, e.g. people vote for political candidates with shared goals, and the political candidates also lack sufficient knowledge. My point was that issues like this should be "set policy" by those with sophisticated knowledge, and formal debates should happen within those circles. You are welcome to debate any issue you like.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
The point is, you and 810wme are unsophisticated when it comes to criminology and I don't expect you will know this stuff or even be able to argue these points. Which is why the moral question of execution should be the domain of more sophisticated people, more sophisticated than myself as well. Most countries, and Amensty International have denounced capital punishment. It's high-time the United States does so as well.
and exactly how sophisticated does one have to be in order to know that murder, even state sanctioned murder, is wrong?
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
and exactly how sophisticated does one have to be in order to know that murder, even state sanctioned murder, is wrong?
People can come to that conclusion without being sophisticated. Certainly being sophisticated will help, as I've suggested and I was specifically referring to capital punishment. But in terms of murder in general, it may not be a matter of sophistication. As I've argued, many, if not most murders are the result of biological and sociological antecedents that have nothing to do with sophistication.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
People can come to that conclusion without being sophisticated. Certainly being sophisticated will help, as I've suggested and I was specifically referring to capital punishment. But in terms of murder in general, it may not be a matter of sophistication. As I've argued, many, if not most murders are the result of biological and sociological antecedents that have nothing to do with sophistication.
i was talking about people 'outside' looking at the crime of murder being sophisticated. sorry about the ambiguity. i am well aware of biological and sociological antecedents and i agree with you on that. but for me to execute someone simply because they broke some arbitrary social law is immoral.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
The frontal cortex and the criminal justice system
Robert M. Sapolsky
Department of Biological Sciences, and Department of Neurology and Neurological Sciences, Stanford University School
of Medicine, Gilbert Laboratory,MC5020, Stanford, CA 94305-5020, USA (<!-- e --><a href="mailto:sapolsky@stanford.edu">sapolsky@stanford.edu</a><!-- e -->)
In recent decades, the general trend in the criminal justice system in the USA has been to narrow the range of
insanity defences available, with an increasing dependence solely on the M’Naghten rule. This states that
innocence by reason of insanity requires that the perpetrator could not understand the nature of their criminal
act, or did not know that the act was wrong, by reason of a mental illness. In this essay, I question the
appropriateness of this, in light of contemporary neuroscience. Specifically, I focus on the role of the prefrontal
cortex (PFC) in cognition, emotional regulation, control of impulsive behaviour and moral reasoning.
I review the consequences of PFC damage on these endpoints, the capacity for factors such as alcohol
and stress to transiently impair PFC function, and the remarkably late development of the PFC (in which
full myelination may not occur until early adulthood). I also consider how individual variation in PFC
function and anatomy, within the normative range, covaries with some of these endpoints. This literature
is reviewed because of its relevance to issues of criminal insanity; specifically, damage can produce an
individual capable of differentiating right from wrong but who, nonetheless, is organically incapable of
appropriately regulating their behaviour.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
i was talking about people 'outside' looking at the crime of murder being sophisticated. sorry about the ambiguity. i am well aware of biological and sociological antecedents and i agree with you on that. but for me to execute someone simply because they broke some arbitrary social law is immoral.
I agree, and I'm totally against execution. I'm not sure what your question was.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I agree, and I'm totally against execution. I'm not sure what your question was.
there is no question. i was just disagreeing with your assertion that one must have some predetermined level of sophistication before they are able to debate the immorality of execution.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
there is no question. i was just disagreeing with your assertion that one must have some predetermined level of sophistication before they are able to debate the immorality of execution.
Yea, that point was already brought forward. And I'll admit, my statement stems largely from my disgust with many of the posts. As always, there seems to be a total lack of respect for human life. It's depressing for me, because I have studied Developmental Psychology, Psychology, Criminology and Neurobiology. I continue to this very moment to keep myself informed of new findings. I may not be an expert and wouldn't consider myself sophisticated enough to take part in any policy setting debates, but I know enough to be incredibly irked by the statements made here from positions of total ignorance.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Yea, that point was already brought forward. And I'll admit, my statement stems largely from my disgust with many of the posts. As always, there seems to be a total lack of respect for human life. It's depressing for me, because I have studied Developmental Psychology, Psychology, Criminology and Neurobiology. I continue to this very moment to keep myself informed of new findings. I may not be an expert and wouldn't consider myself sophisticated enough to take part in any policy setting debates, but I know enough to be incredibly irked by the statements made here from positions of total ignorance.
then you should realise that their opinions are partly the result of their environment. revenge is deeply ingrained in some people. they don't question it cause they don't think there is a need to.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Issues such as these prompt that chauvinistic sense on
my part that a knowledge of neurobiology would make all
of us better informed voters, family members and teachers.
Arguably, the most important arena in which a greater
knowledge of neuroscience is needed is the criminal justice
system. In some cases, the criminal justice system has
accommodated well the lessons of neurobiology. If someone
with epilepsy, in the course of a seizure, flails and strikes
another person, that epileptic would never be considered to
have criminally assaulted the person who they struck. But in
earlier times, that is exactly what would have been concluded,
and epilepsy was often assumed to be a case of
retributive demonic possession (Eadie & Bladin 2001).
Instead, we are now a century or two into readily dealing
with the alternative viewof, ‘it is not him, it is his disease’.
However, there are an ever-increasing number of realms
in which the legal system has made little headway in incorporating
neurobiology. In this paper, I consider some of the
greatest incompatibilities between these two realms and some of the most important ways in which modern neurobiology
can inform criminology, with an emphasis on the
role of impaired volition in the insanity defence. First, two
caveats: I write this as a scientist, and thus readily anticipate
that some of the representations of the legal realm will
be grossly simplified. Second, I write as an American,
which means that the criminal justice system that I am
most familiar with has some rather unique features to it.
This includes a society with extremely high rates of violence,
of incarceration and of recidivism, a propensity virtually
unmatched in the Judeo–Christian world for
executing criminals (coupled with frequent cases of conviction
of the wrong person in capital cases (Acker et al.
2001)), and well-documented patterns in which the likelihood
of conviction and the severity of punishment differ
systematically as a function of the ethnicity and socioeconomic
status of perpetrators and/or victims.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
The point is, you and 810wme are unsophisticated when it comes to criminology and I don't expect you will know this stuff or even be able to argue these points.
Probably not the best way to demonstrate your sophistication.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Yea, that point was already brought forward. And I'll admit, my statement stems largely from my disgust with many of the posts. As always, there seems to be a total lack of respect for human life. It's depressing for me, because I have studied Developmental Psychology, Psychology, Criminology and Neurobiology. I continue to this very moment to keep myself informed of new findings. I may not be an expert and wouldn't consider myself sophisticated enough to take part in any policy setting debates, but I know enough to be incredibly irked by the statements made here from positions of total ignorance.
you'd be hard pressed to dismiss my views on the criminal justice system as "total ignorance." get over yourself. your arrogance and condescension are sickening. the fact that you're a wikipedia junkie does not place you one notch above us "unsophisticated" people.
you'd be hard pressed to dismiss my views on the criminal justice system as "total ignorance." get over yourself. your arrogance and condescension are sickening. the fact that you're a wikipedia junkie does not place you one notch above us "unsophisticated" people.
At least he spoke for himself there, with that post you quoted.
You gotta give him that.
you'd be hard pressed to dismiss my views on the criminal justice system as "total ignorance." get over yourself. your arrogance and condescension are sickening. the fact that you're a wikipedia junkie does not place you one notch above us "unsophisticated" people.
I can see you brought a lot to the discussion.
Did you read that article, that book, that other article?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Comments
Not as of yet. Although, empathy is possible by mirror neurons. Something that psychopaths might not have. I believe these mirror neurons are found in the prefrontal cortex or other frontal regions. If these neurons are destroyed by trauma, such as child abuse, then we may find ways of reinstating them. Hyperstimulation is an option being explored. In either case, executing the subjects will make them impossible to study. Through study we can learn how these incidents occur. If it turns out that child abuse is a determining factor, which it clearly is. Then people should stop abusing their children.
I had a conversation with a coworker yesterday who states "The best way to get a kid to do what you want is to smack them upside the head." That is what I would call physical child abuse. Of course, I've studied Developmental Psychology, so I already know it's a bad idea. Unfortunately, not everyone, barely anyone, takes the time to study such subjects.
your example about the two women reveals nothing about analyzing criminal motives. it reveals a lot about the susceptibility of the justice system to abuse, especially by the wealthy. i would say 1) the rich woman deserves more jailtime. 2) i don't think your outcome would be the case in reality. mitigating factors are already considered in most cases and treatment for mental illness is included when deciding sentences. the problem is not that such factors are not recognized and considered. the problem is that it is VERY expensive to do this and the system has limited resources. sure, in an ideal world, every criminal would receive a full psychiatric evaluation and be given a chance for a full-scale therapy program to avert incarceration. however, that's not the world we live in. in such an ideal world, nobody would go hungry and no one would grow up in an environment that would push someone to such behaviors.
dude, if people want to abuse their kids, they're going to. i rather doubt showing them a study of death row inmates that proves abuse might make them a psychopath is going to prevent the kind of person willing to beat a child from actually doing it.
I've also done extensive reading and cross-referencing on this subject. It is widely believed that testosterone is a biological factor. I won't argue that it isn't. It most certainly is. But sociological factors are determining as well. When I see from statistics Canada that women are more 'aggressive' in 11 catagories, mainly with weapons, it calls into question this. But as the article also states oestrogen/estrogen may also be a biological factor, and I think that's probably true. Culture/Society as stated is a major factor, probably a catalyzing factor. Clearly Canadian and Australian cultures differ, maybe not in huge detectable ways, but this system is chaotic and determining the actual sociological causes is a difficult matter indeed.
The point is, you and 810wme are unsophisticated when it comes to criminology and I don't expect you will know this stuff or even be able to argue these points. Which is why the moral question of execution should be the domain of more sophisticated people, more sophisticated than myself as well. Most countries, and Amensty International have denounced capital punishment. It's high-time the United States does so as well.
Look. We've been down this road before, and I know you aspire to be a crown attorney which is already indicative on your view of criminals. It's relatively easy to infer from an attorney's role, whether they are crown, defense or corporate, what type of personality they have, or their views of criminals and the justice system. I'm also aware of your ideology, which is contrary to the evidence I've provided. So discussing this with you is actually quite futile.
And that becomes justification for execution?
know what stuff or argue what points? i oppose capital punishment as much as you do. what has that got to do with sophistication. in fact, i'd argue that i am more sophisticated than you becos your analysis is lab-restricted and you can only talk about one particular, narrow, and limited aspect of the debate: factors influencing criminal behavior. that is only one small part of the topic as to how we respond to criminals in society and there are many factors you seem incapable of accounting for... the realities of which i am constantly speaking: human fallibity, complex social systems, limited justice resources, etc. yours is the unsophisticated response. you can tell me what lab reports say causes crime. but you cannot give me a single concrete idea as to what to do about it in the real world.
what's a crown attorney? i actually aspire to be a transactional lawyer... fancy word for helping people make business details. i'm a big picture kind of guy.
my ideology? im curious what you think it is. my ideology is simply that concern for criminal rehabilitation needs to be balanced against other important considerations like social safety.
no. i'm opposed to capital punishment. did you miss that part? i'm just saying it's ridiculous to claim that diagnosing death row inmates is somehow going to prevent child abuse. medical science has shown that smoking will give you cancer and kill you. people still smoke and more people start every day.
I certainly can. We need a program to raise awareness. To inform the public on the causes and prevention of crime, especially violent crime. We need new social paradigms on crime. As for the justice system, we need to eliminate capital punishment, revamp the appeals process, so the appeal officers are trained professionals in criminology, and we need to revamp the institutions we house criminals in. Jails should be more like mental health institutions, with physicians monitoring rehabilitation and reporting to the appeals officers. The jails are already taking in mentally ill people who have been released into the public by the closing of asylums all across the U.S.. The jails have had to take on that responsibility already, so it's two-fold the adaptation of jails to a more humane system, like that of a mental health institution. The public is still safe, security is still insured, however the treatment and rehabilitation of criminals is far more scientific and humane.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_attorney
so you don't think the people in charge of interpreting laws should be trained in the law? putting criminologists in the appeals process would change nothing. you still have an isolated elite making decisions on people's lives. i think you mean you want the input of criminologists in writing the laws governing sentencing guidelines and mitigating factors.
as to the jails, i can somewhat get on board with that. though i don't know how effective it would be. jails already have plenty of remedial programs. they offer counseling and education. people don't take advantage of it though.
Well, the law, is only the law. It's a set of precedents. It evolves and is not set in stone. Law should be adaptive depending on the particular case and it's antecedents. But, all-in-all, changing our perspective of "crime" should be beneficial. Crime should not be stigmatized as it is.
The jails themselves, the environments are sufficient to cause mental illness. So that needs to change as well. If the prisons are willing to work with the inmates, instead of work against them, then the inmates should be more willing to cooperate. There should be input from psychologists on the restructuring of the jails.
That's probably one of the more ridiculous things I have heard on the entire internet. To suggest that people can't debate important issues because they are not experts in them is crazy. I guess since I am not a criminologist I shouldn't be discussing this. In turn I am not an economist so I shouldn't ever discuss the economy. I am not an MD so I should never debate health care issues. I am not a general so I probably shouldn't discuss any wars or military missions. If people only talked about subjects they were complete experts on, how would anyone hear new opinions or learn new things?
Good one. My words should have been "set policy" not debate. But since this is an issue often voted on, e.g. people vote for political candidates with shared goals, and the political candidates also lack sufficient knowledge. My point was that issues like this should be "set policy" by those with sophisticated knowledge, and formal debates should happen within those circles. You are welcome to debate any issue you like.
and exactly how sophisticated does one have to be in order to know that murder, even state sanctioned murder, is wrong?
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
People can come to that conclusion without being sophisticated. Certainly being sophisticated will help, as I've suggested and I was specifically referring to capital punishment. But in terms of murder in general, it may not be a matter of sophistication. As I've argued, many, if not most murders are the result of biological and sociological antecedents that have nothing to do with sophistication.
i was talking about people 'outside' looking at the crime of murder being sophisticated. sorry about the ambiguity. i am well aware of biological and sociological antecedents and i agree with you on that. but for me to execute someone simply because they broke some arbitrary social law is immoral.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Robert M. Sapolsky
Department of Biological Sciences, and Department of Neurology and Neurological Sciences, Stanford University School
of Medicine, Gilbert Laboratory,MC5020, Stanford, CA 94305-5020, USA (<!-- e --><a href="mailto:sapolsky@stanford.edu">sapolsky@stanford.edu</a><!-- e -->)
In recent decades, the general trend in the criminal justice system in the USA has been to narrow the range of
insanity defences available, with an increasing dependence solely on the M’Naghten rule. This states that
innocence by reason of insanity requires that the perpetrator could not understand the nature of their criminal
act, or did not know that the act was wrong, by reason of a mental illness. In this essay, I question the
appropriateness of this, in light of contemporary neuroscience. Specifically, I focus on the role of the prefrontal
cortex (PFC) in cognition, emotional regulation, control of impulsive behaviour and moral reasoning.
I review the consequences of PFC damage on these endpoints, the capacity for factors such as alcohol
and stress to transiently impair PFC function, and the remarkably late development of the PFC (in which
full myelination may not occur until early adulthood). I also consider how individual variation in PFC
function and anatomy, within the normative range, covaries with some of these endpoints. This literature
is reviewed because of its relevance to issues of criminal insanity; specifically, damage can produce an
individual capable of differentiating right from wrong but who, nonetheless, is organically incapable of
appropriately regulating their behaviour.
http://www.hss.caltech.edu/~steve/sapolsky.pdf
I agree, and I'm totally against execution. I'm not sure what your question was.
there is no question. i was just disagreeing with your assertion that one must have some predetermined level of sophistication before they are able to debate the immorality of execution.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Yea, that point was already brought forward. And I'll admit, my statement stems largely from my disgust with many of the posts. As always, there seems to be a total lack of respect for human life. It's depressing for me, because I have studied Developmental Psychology, Psychology, Criminology and Neurobiology. I continue to this very moment to keep myself informed of new findings. I may not be an expert and wouldn't consider myself sophisticated enough to take part in any policy setting debates, but I know enough to be incredibly irked by the statements made here from positions of total ignorance.
then you should realise that their opinions are partly the result of their environment. revenge is deeply ingrained in some people. they don't question it cause they don't think there is a need to.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
my part that a knowledge of neurobiology would make all
of us better informed voters, family members and teachers.
Arguably, the most important arena in which a greater
knowledge of neuroscience is needed is the criminal justice
system. In some cases, the criminal justice system has
accommodated well the lessons of neurobiology. If someone
with epilepsy, in the course of a seizure, flails and strikes
another person, that epileptic would never be considered to
have criminally assaulted the person who they struck. But in
earlier times, that is exactly what would have been concluded,
and epilepsy was often assumed to be a case of
retributive demonic possession (Eadie & Bladin 2001).
Instead, we are now a century or two into readily dealing
with the alternative viewof, ‘it is not him, it is his disease’.
However, there are an ever-increasing number of realms
in which the legal system has made little headway in incorporating
neurobiology. In this paper, I consider some of the
greatest incompatibilities between these two realms and some of the most important ways in which modern neurobiology
can inform criminology, with an emphasis on the
role of impaired volition in the insanity defence. First, two
caveats: I write this as a scientist, and thus readily anticipate
that some of the representations of the legal realm will
be grossly simplified. Second, I write as an American,
which means that the criminal justice system that I am
most familiar with has some rather unique features to it.
This includes a society with extremely high rates of violence,
of incarceration and of recidivism, a propensity virtually
unmatched in the Judeo–Christian world for
executing criminals (coupled with frequent cases of conviction
of the wrong person in capital cases (Acker et al.
2001)), and well-documented patterns in which the likelihood
of conviction and the severity of punishment differ
systematically as a function of the ethnicity and socioeconomic
status of perpetrators and/or victims.
http://www.hss.caltech.edu/~steve/sapolsky.pdf
here's a thought....hug my nuts
Probably not the best way to demonstrate your sophistication.
you'd be hard pressed to dismiss my views on the criminal justice system as "total ignorance." get over yourself. your arrogance and condescension are sickening. the fact that you're a wikipedia junkie does not place you one notch above us "unsophisticated" people.
You gotta give him that.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
I totally agree. I also call for the ban of the Taser Gun!
I can see you brought a lot to the discussion.
Did you read that article, that book, that other article?