Hey, look! It's a new post!
A while back, I recall reading that a woman was convicted for murder on the basis of her brain scans, which were analyzed as being aggressive and homicidal. It started me wondering: Can we really judge people based upon their brain scans, or upon the physical makeup of their brain? If thoughts and feelings are the intensional components of our consciousness, then the actual brain is the extensional part. But to what extent can we decipher intensional thoughts from the extensional brain?
Is it fair to use brain scans at all? We all know that brain scans certainly reveal at least part of our thoughts: they're used to test advertising campaigns and the effects of certain drugs all the time. But how accurate are they? I remember reading another article in which brain scans were used to help the defendant: the attorney argued that the brain scans showed that his client was vulnerable to irresistible impulses for murder. But can brain scans show the difference between an irresistible impluse and an impulse that was not resisted?
I'm sure many of you remember the movie Minority Report, in which the police can actually stop crimes before they even happen. Could brain scans lead to this path? If someone's brain chemistry indicates him to be extremely aggressive, unbalanced, and homicidal, but he has not committed any act yet, how do we treat him? Is that person innocent until proven guilty, or an accident just waiting to happen?
-Eric Wei
5 comments:
Interestingly enough the right of "innocence until proven guilty" is absent from the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and any other political document. It has been presumed since about 1894, but it has yet to be formally recorded. Although the concept is embodied in the Constitution (right to remain silent, right to a jury), it is never stated directly. Does this further justify the use of brain scans?
I agree with Eric's reasoning about our intensional thoughts being the true essence of our personalities, but isn't something physical, something extensional needed when solving murder cases? Wouldn't it become too complicated for members of the court to take semantics into account? Even if it is not fair, it is done, which irks me somewhat. Doesn't our nation represent justice?
Whether the impulse was resisted or not may never be proven unless, as I stated earlier, physicaly evidence was available (DNA, etc..). Therefore, isn't it only natural to want to insist that there is some extensional evidence at hand? We can't read minds, but we can surely examine them. It is inevitable that we try to draw conclusions from the little that we have. We're only human.
(Sam Maliha)
I think that examining these brain scans can almost be as bad as racial profiling. When these scans are examined, don't the examiners base their conclusions on their semantic environments? When someone finds an impulse in someone's brain and remember an event where another person had a similar impulse, the person tends to expect the same kind of outcome, even though it may not necessarily be true at all.
Furthermore, if it is used as evidence, it seems to be quite insubstantial. Even if the brain scan were analyzed by an 'expert,' it is still one man's opinion. Therefore, I don't think that the women mentioned should have been convicted just on the mere basis of her brain scans. There should have been at least some substantial evidence to back that specific claim.
Brains cans are definitely not a good way to determine whether a persons committed a murder. The human brain is an amazing organism, and the idea that we can determine exactly what is going on in someone's brain is somewhat ridiculous. Its like when someone says "Oh i wish he just died" or somehting like that. They don't mean any harm, they just feel that way because they have a strong emotional hatred towards that person at a certain moment in time. It could be used for determinig if a person is a suspect, but it cannot prove someone guilty.
Also on Eric's comment on the Minority Report. I don't think that brain scans could ever lead to a point where we can predict the future and even if by some miracle we can do that, I don't think it would be very accurate. A person may have thoughts about committing a crime, but just before they do it, their is a good chance that they see that what they are doing is wrong and walk away.
(Arvind Kalidindi)
Upon reading this post, my first reaction is to say that something like a brain scan can certainly provide insight into a person's mind and the way s/he thinks or works, but it should not be considered "proof" that someone is a murderer. If a person is aware that s/he has homocidal impulses, s/he can look for help, and it is not impossible to resist. So, the brain scan in and of itself should not be enough to convict.
Emily T.
Brain scans can certainly be good sources to guide the direction of an investigation. However, it should not be used as a proof to find someone guilty of a crime. There are many flaws to this method of investigatioin. First,a person's brain scan is always subject to change. One can show certain emotion and over time it can change.
Also, there are so many part of our brain that has not yet been explored and studied. Therefore, I think right now it is too early to decide whether brain scans can be used as a reliable, complete source of evidence. Even if an attorney/lawyer,etc present brain scan as an evidence, it should be noted that brain scans are not completely reliable.
Jennifer Park
Post a Comment