Medical Advancement And Predatory Criminals Essay Example

Medical Advancement And Predatory Criminals Essay Example Medical Advancement And Predatory Criminals Paper Medical Advancement And Predatory Criminals Paper Anthropological research data has shown the violence is an inherent conduct among the primate species (Walker, 2001). In society, criminal violence is a common occurrence and legislators have suggested that the behavior of criminals be analyzed in order to identify any psychological patterns that are consistent among these particular types of individuals. In the past few decades, neurobiologists have proposed that an individual’s condition, which encompasses empathy, morality and free will, is holistically influenced by the frequency of stimulation and assembly of the neurons of an individual. Such notion is contradictory to the concept of Cartesian dualism, which states that the brain and the mind are two independent entities that coordinate with each other. To date, the accumulation of research reports from the field of neuroscience is gradually affecting the concepts and effectivity of the justice system because of the shifting in the concept of human behavior and response to different stimuli. Neuroscience has influenced our current understanding of the multiple factors that govern violent behavior among criminals. The 19th century classic report of Phineas Gage regarding the anti-social behavior that emerged after massive damage of the prefrontal cortex of his brain from a railroad accident is now considered as the birth of the field of forensic neurology (Harlow, 1848). Today, computerized imaging of his fractured skull has shown that the autonomic and social nerve systems are the specific damages that were affected, thus resulting in a totally different individual. Such observation, together with research results gathered from war veterans, has led to the conclusion that violent criminal behavior is caused by injuries to the frontal lobe of the brain. It has then been proposed that injury to the prefrontal cortex of the brain causes a condition that has been coined as acquired sociopathy or pseudopsychopath (Blair and Cipolotti, 2000). It is interesting to know that there is an 11% reduction in the size of the grey matter of the prefrontal cortex among patients diagnosed with anti-social personality disorder (APD) (Raine et al. , 2000). A related observation has also been observed between intelligence and alterations in the grey matter of the prefrontal cortex. The temporal lobe of the brain has also been determined to influence an individual’s emotional response and aggression, wherein lesions in the amygdale of the temporal lobe result in an individual’s failure to recognize fear and sadness among the faces of other people (van Elst et al. , 2001). The connection between the decreased expression of the monoamine oxidase A enzyme and reactive violence has already been established (Caspi et al. , 2002). Monoamine oxidase A is responsible for the catabolism of monoamines such as serotonin (5-HT). The working hypothesis currently accepted is that the prefrontal-amygdala connection is altered, resulting in a dysfunctional aggressive and violent behavior, resulting in criminality in particular individuals. In a recent study conducted by Young et al. (2007), the association between an individual’s opinion and his corresponding actions was proven using neurobiological support that an area of the brain was responsible for such behavior. This particular area of the brain, the right temporoparietal junction (RTPJ) was observed to play a major role in an individual’s beliefs and further classifies these notions as either negative or neutral. The negative beliefs that are generated in this section of the brain thus triggers whether an individual would want to cause harm in another individual. This revolutionary concept of acknowledgment of belief is the first form of neurobiological data that describes the connection between the brain and moral judgment. Four states of mind were described to be influenced by the activation of the RTPJ, of which 3 states were harmful and 1 was neutral in outcome. The 3 harmful states of mind included intentional injury, attempted mischief and unintentional damage. In addition, the report described that an increase in the stimulation of the RTPJ generally resulted in an individual either attempting or purposely causing harm to another individual. Such stimulation of that particular of the brain is thus responsible in an individual’s judgment of morality and behavior in society. The recent report of Young et al. (2007) has motivated scientists to develop a microchip to may be surgically introduced into the brain of an individual in order to regulate the response of the RTPJ and ultimately prevent an individual from committing harmful acts. The plan of requiring the surgical insertion of this microchip into the brains of criminals and using the presence of this microchip as main basis for release or parole of a convicted criminal is unethical because this can be perceived as a form of eugenics. This field of genetics involves the active selection of individuals with appropriate features that are deemed worthy of being included in society. For several decades, there have been several attempts in selecting which individuals will be allowed to survive around the world. The principle of eugenics is mainly based on picking specific physical and anatomical features that are classified as good or bad and those individuals with poor or bad features are treated with biomedical tools in order to change their features. An extreme form of eugenics is the mass destruction of certain populations in society by another group of individuals, as was evident in Hitler’s eradication of the Jews. An advocate of the biological connection of criminality would employ the concept of eugenics in screening individuals that show a potential to show criminal and anti-social behavior. To make things more complex, the features that were described to be triggered in the brain, such as the RTPJ, may also be used as criteria in admission to schools and workhouses. An extreme reaction would even result in construction of facilities that would enclose candidates or suspects for criminal behavior. A biological discrimination would thus be observed and this unfair basis of screening individuals would create more chaos in society. Eugenics may also be translated as a screening tool in picking which criminals will be kept in prison and which individuals will be freed and this action will be mainly based on the biological features of whether the criminal may be rehabilitated or transformed into a normal non-aggressive person. The so-called degenerate individuals would be kept off the streets in order to prevent interaction with non-degenerate individuals, as well as to prevent future crimes in the community. In addition, society would be introduced to the option of strictly selecting partners for marriage because they will be taught to pick partners that show obvious physical differences from the consensus physical features of criminals. It is thus inappropriate and unethical to require criminals to have the microchip surgically inserted into their brain unless the criminal himself volunteers for this procedure. Should the criminal be given the choice, the surgical insertion of the microchip may be possible, yet the ultimate role of microchip usage in the determination of freedom of a human being is still questionable. The criminal may opt for the microchip because he knows that he will be released soon after the procedure is completed. However, knowing that all biological species evolve through time, another section of the brain may develop capabilities in triggering criminal behavior and after several decades or centuries this problem of criminality will still be around because a new region of the brain is not stimulated to cause criminal behavior among individuals. More importantly, there are also research reports that contradict the microchip concept, wherein the RTPJ is not the sole brain regions that controls the mind (Mitchell, 2008). This contradictory report thus suggests that there more research and investigations should be performed in order to better understand the connection between the brain and the theory of mind and moral judgment. References Blair RJ and Cipolotti L (2000): Impaired social response reversal. A case of ‘acquired sociopathy’. Brain 123:1122–1141. Caspi A, McClay J, Moffi tt TE, Mill J and Martin J (2002): Role of genotype in the cycle of violence in maltreated children. Science 297:851–854. Harlow J (1848): Passage of an iron bar through the head. Boston Med Surg J 13:389–393. Mitchell JP (2008): Activity in right temporo-parietal junction is not selective for theory-of-mind. Cereb Cortex 18:262-271 Raine A, Lencz T, Bihrle S, LaCasse L and Colletti P (2000) Reduced prefrontal gray matter volume and reduced autonomic activity in antisocial personality disorder. Arch Gen Psychiatry 57:119–127. van Elst LT, Trimble MR, Ebert D, van Elst LT (2001) Dual brain pathology in patients with affective aggressive episodes. Arch Gen Psychiatry 58:1187–1188. Walker PL (2001): A bioarchaeological perspective on the history of violence. Annu Rev Anthropol 30: 573–596. Young L, Cushman F, Hauser M and Saxe R (2007): The neural basis of the interaction between theory of mind and moral judgment. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104(20):8