Kids' brains may hold clues to future criminals

Kids' brains may hold clues to future criminals

pagingdrgupta.blogs.cnn.com

Who is going to grow up to become a criminal or psychopath?

Current research in genetics and neuroscience may point towards answers to this question, opening up a whole host of ethical questions about culpability, justice and treatment.

"Is there truly freedom of will, as the law assumes? Freedom of will may not be as free as many of us may think," said Adrian Raine of the University of Pennsylvania.

(visit the link for the full news article)

I feel that regardless if a person's brain turns out to function differently from that of another person as they grow up in such a way that it can be used to determine the likelihood of a person being prone to commit crime, every individual should be punished accordingly fairly per the severity of the crime committed.

In other words just because person-A's brain has poor function in the Amygdala-section of the brain compared to person-B's brain (poor function in the amygdala is an indicator of impaired fear-conditioning which is a red-flag indicator of potential to being prone to criminal behavior in life according to the article) doesn't mean person-A should get a pass at better treatment by the justice system as opposed to person-B, simply because person-B doesn't have poor amygdala-function, unlike person-A who's poor amygdala-function serves as an excuse for different treatment so therefore person-A doesn't have to be held responsible for whatever crime they may commit. Nobody should get 'special' treatment. Person-A should be punished the same way as Person-B.

As it says in the article;

The extent to which biological factors should play a role in the justice system is an open and highly controversial question, as is the extent to which biological interventions should be developed to reduce crime.

The end of the article asks;

"If neurological and genetic factors out of a person's control contribute to criminal offending, do we need to rethink how they are punished? If we punish people to deter others from committing crimes, does that make sense if psychopaths aren't afraid of the consequences of their actions anyway?"

I can say one thing for sure is that regardless of whatever problem somebody has with their brain? If somebody commits indecency with a child? Their sentence should be execution. Period.

Also I wish Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio would be in charge of the entire judicial system in America. I consider him a hero.

pagingdrgupta.blogs.cnn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

This sounds like more eugenics crap.

How a person is raised and treated is just as important. There have been several sociological studies where people are "guards" and "inmates" that show this.

We even did a mini version of this in college in educational theory. One group was the "superior" and one group was the "inferior" and put to the back of the class... even knowing it was an experiment there was a lot of changes in attitudes.

This study is pure crap and should be treated as such!

Originally posted by pianopraze
This study is pure crap and should be treated as such!

I was thinking the same thing.

reply to post by Marked One


methinks this university study has an open mind to furthering federal grant money into this dubious research. anything to "rationally" explain away why some people are born to commit crime.

Minority Report here we come...

At any rate, like someone else mentioned it also a product of upbringing and morals that are instilled. Even further a huge aspect of crime is committed out of environment and situations. Crimes are to common folk as "good business" is to government

[Mental Health Professional speaking]

What this study does not feature is the fact that there are MANY people born with genetic predisposition to become criminals, (or what the actual clinical term is "Antisocial Personality Disorder") that don't commit violent crimes. Most of them are small-time druggies, thieves, losers and often in and out of jail for petty stuff like drunk in public, possession of drugs, stealing, etc. While the majority of them don't have empathy or concern for others, they don't become rapists or serial killers either.

Eugenics is a dicey issue, and no man has the right to determine who should live and who should be put to death based solely on genetic predisposition. Those that have the brain defect and break the law, need to be held legally accountable. I've seen many of these APD's as ex-felons who can and do stay out of trouble if they try because they do not want to go back to prison.

Having someone live out their life with the stigma of being labeled a potential criminal would be the biggest crime of all.

Unfortunately, this is something I can imagine being embraced for a few years with the right propaganda. Welcome to a whole new world of discrimination for kids. Bullying would take on a new angle as well. Of course, this wouldn't apply to the children of the elite. they get away with everything, insidious mindset or not.

I throw the hoax card for two reasons... I believe they are wasting funds on the means of their research not the research itself...

Crime is not in the brain 9 tenths the time....

Their assumption starts in the fact that certain areas alone handle all of x....

I am partially disabused of this notion...

reply to post by ripcontrol


this is the thread on brain research I have added a little to... follow the links on no brained people.... yes they have little to no brains

literally- none...

with this in mind I must no go to research quoted by malcom gladwell in tipping point...

www.wikisummaries.org...

in the book a good point is made.... I forget who did the research...

its called the broken window effect... for this discusion it goes to how children behave....

good neighborhoods and influences but from turbulent homes produce less anti-social individuals versus godd homes with bad influences and bad neighborhoods....

Its counterintuitive but I can see it...

its original thought versus the sum total of peer presure and outside influence

with B beating part A because twain was right, no original thoughts...


I believe it is nine tenths programing with a one tenth being the fact the brain has not yet rerouted its network and or is having trouble....


it is the no brains that make it the swing vote.....

the problem is that If I was ever in charge I could prevent about 85% of crime in the US and lower the cost to the feds and states with a simple test....

Programming error not hardware sorry (9 tenths...)