How Neuroscience Is Challenging Our Conception of Justice
Scientists argue the courtroom is a bad place for brain scans to serve as evidence because they cannot assess the full guilt of an individual. Other developments are changing how we think of justice.
What's the Latest Development?
Since a US judge first allowed the presentation of EEG scans in court in 2005, the role of neuroscience has become more relevant across a wide spectrum of the law. In some cases, it has been deftly but poorly used by lawyers working to exonerate their clients, arguing that "intervening" neural circumstances somehow make them less culpable for their crime. But in other cases, that claim may hold weight. By better understanding how the brain develops into an "adult brain", we might gain better insight into how age relates to culpability, perhaps requiring us to modify the arbitrary line drawn at 18 years.
What's the Big Idea?
Many scientists maintain that EEG scans, and the like, remain too imprecise to assess an individual's guilt, and that the technology is limited to making general statements about large groups of people. Brain scans are, however, helping us to understand guilt differently. It is possible, for example, that individuals could be taught to control their drug addictions by controlling their cravings, which first fire as impulses in the brain. David Eagleman, who runs the Initiative on Neuroscience and Law at Baylor University’s College of Medicine in Houston, says such an approach would be difficult to implement because it cuts against the punitive function of our criminal-justice system.
Photo credit: Shutterstock.com
The way that you think about stress can actually transform the effect that it has on you – and others.
- Stress is contagious, and the higher up in an organization you are the more your stress will be noticed and felt by others.
- Kelly McGonigal teaches "Reset your mindset to reduce stress" for Big Think Edge.
- Subscribe to Big Think Edge before we launch on March 30 to get 20% off monthly and annual memberships.
Rediscovering the principles of self-actualisation might be just the tonic that the modern world is crying out for.
Abraham Maslow was the 20th-century American psychologist best-known for explaining motivation through his hierarchy of needs, which he represented in a pyramid. At the base, our physiological needs include food, water, warmth and rest.
"I was so moved when I saw the cells stir," said 90-year-old study co-author Akira Iritani. "I'd been hoping for this for 20 years."
- The team managed to stimulate nucleus-like structures to perform some biological processes, but not cell division.
- Unless better technology and DNA samples emerge in the future, it's unlikely that scientists will be able to clone a woolly mammoth.
- Still, studying the DNA of woolly mammoths provides valuable insights into the genetic adaptations that allowed them to survive in unique environments.
Does believing in true love make people act like jerks?
- Ghosting, or the practice of cutting off all contact suddenly with a romantic partner, is a controversial method of dumping someone.
- People generally agree that it's bad form, but new research shows that people have surprisingly different opinions on the practice.
- Overall, people who are more destiny-oriented (more likely to believe that they have a soulmate) tend to approve of ghosting more, while people who are more growth-oriented (more likely to believe relationships are made rather than born) are less tolerant of ghosting.
SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by The Big Think, Inc. All rights reserved.