Blame it on the Brain
by Hannah Srinivasan
"My brain made me do it," may become a new defense in criminal courts as neuroscience and law intertwine. Recent research providing some support to the notion that certain neurological conditions can cause criminal behavior has ignited a heated discussion within scientific and legal communities. Rapidly progressing brain imaging techniques allow neuroscientists to study the role of neurological lesions, epigenetic markers, brain abnormalities, and molecular alterations in provoking criminal behavior, forcing us to face difficult questions about guilt and responsibility.
Criminal behavior results in significant losses to society, including emotional and psychological harm as well as monetary burdens. The estimated annual cost of crime in the United States is approximately-4.71 to 5.76 trillion dollars. If there were ways to predict and mitigate some of the crimes the United States experiences, this burden could be alleviated. As such, neurolaw and its accompanying field of research emerge as prospects to identify brain abnormalities that may be linked to criminal behavior, allowing more targeted intervention after conviction, and reducing recidivism rates. However, we need to be mindful of the potential harm caused by perpetuating harmful stereotypes, which already plague our legal system.
How can neuroscience help us decrease crime in this country in a way that respects civil rights and ethical norms?
A recent study indicated that the brains of murderers could look different from those of non-murderers, even if they had been convicted of other crimes. The researchers examined magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of more than 800 convicted murderers from Wisconsin and New Mexico prisons and compared them with those of men who were in a "violent non-homicide group." This comparison showed a significant decrease of gray matter in brain scans of convicted murderers. The brain's gray matter is tissue in your brain that consists of high concentrations of neuronal bodies, axon terminals, and dendrites. Gray matter is found in the central nervous system and allows individuals to retain control over their movement, memory, and emotions. The researchers found reduced volumes of gray matter and, as such, reduced neurons, glia, and cells in the brains of murderers, specifically regions of the orbitofrontal cortex and anterior temporal lobes of the brain. As Professor Jean Decety, a researcher involved in the study, claimed: "More gray matter means more cells, neurons, and glia… that's what you need to make computations, to process information.” This study suggests that murderers have a decreased ability to suppress their behavior, emotions, and tendencies to react.
These insights bring up a series of thorny ethical and legal questions: does neurological evidence of reduced gray matter count as a disability of a person who committed a crime? Is the criminal still liable for their actions if any neurological abnormality is indicated? Some believe that the intersection of neuroscience and law allows for recognizing brain abnormalities as disabilities and by doing so providing more equitable treatment in the criminal justice system and broader society. This perspective suggests that understanding neurological differences can lead to legal frameworks that acknowledge these conditions as mitigating factors, thereby ensuring fair trials and sentencing. Furthermore, it can pave the way for supportive policies that accommodate individuals with cognitive impairments in various aspects of life, promoting their inclusion and protection under human rights laws.
Take the case of Grady Nelson for example. Nelson was a male Miami resident convicted of fatally stabbing his wife and of attacking and sexually assaulting her two children (who survived the ordeal). In light of the heinousness of Nelson's crimes, the Miami jury was asked to decide on life in prison versus death penalty. In court, Robert Thatcher, a neuroscientist and president of Applied Neuroscience Incorporation, a company specializing in EEG (electroencephalogram) software and analysis, testified, presenting Grady Nelson's quantitative electroencephalography (QEEG), which detected abnormalities in Nelson's left frontal lobe. QEEGs track the electrical activity of the brain via electrodes attached to the scalp, serving to localize traumatic brain injuries, seizures, autism spectrum disorder and more. Thatcher drew connections between potential damage to Grady Nelson's frontal lobe, as shown by large abnormal spikes in the EEG trace and Nelson's lack of judgment and self-control while committing his crimes. Many of the members of the jury were significantly swayed, as comments to the press following the trial revealed, by the EEG traces presented and Thatcher's testimony, helping Grady escape lethal injection and instead serve life in prison.
Neuroscience’s ability to detect potential damage to Nelson’s frontal lobe opens the door to pairing treatment and rehabilitation plans with prison time for individuals with fixable brain abnormalities. By addressing these neurological conditions, this approach can reduce the likelihood of recidivism and support the individual’s rehabilitation, offering a more holistic and humane strategy that acknowledges the role of underlying brain conditions in criminal behavior.
However, while neuroscience offers the potential for holistic treatment approaches to criminal behavior, some argue that neurolaw could inadvertently diminish the perception of guilt and responsibility of offenders. These critics are concerned that attributing criminal actions to neurological abnormalities might lead to reduced accountability, undermining the moral and legal foundations of the justice system. They fear that a focus on brain-based explanations could shift the narrative from one of personal responsibility to one of biological determinism, potentially affecting how society views justice and punishment.
In Grady Nelson’s case neuroscientists like Charles Epstein, from Emory University in Atlanta, voiced their concerns regarding Robert Thatcher’s QEEG interpretation and validity. He argues that Thatcher's presentation had background noise which are signals that are detected but are not generated by the brain, in essence, faulty data. Epstein also argued that his analysis was statistically flawed, resulting in invalid interpretation and testimony. Given these discrepancies in interpreting brain abnormalities the reliability of neuroscientific evidence in determining criminal culpability might be limited.
Little is known about how abnormalities in the brain can directly impact one's actions. How can we be certain that brain abnormalities cause a person to act in a certain way? Courts across the nation are struggling with this question and arrive at different answers. However, if courts of law consider these abnormalities, offenders of violent crimes can be directed to receive appropriate mediation to help prevent recidivism and be treated as the human beings they are.
published XX/XX/2024