This NPR story really has me in a quandary:
On some level I am tempted to say that even if it were 100% accurate, we should not use it. But I might feel differently if my family were terrorised by someone who could have been “red flagged” by such a scan.
And of course the mention of taking pills opens up the whole Clockwork Orange or One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest can of worms.
I suppose it depends on how accurate they are, and what you do with them. Part of the problem is that we’re almost guaranteed to just react according to our current obsession with “Punish! Punish! Punish!” regardless of any evidence as to what the most effective means of stopping crime is.
It’s not possible to do so, and so it’s not ethical to pretend that it is.
I think it might be a cool premise for a movie, though. Nah… the idea would never sell.
I’d say it’s only ethical for sentencing people who have already been found guilty of a crime. Using it to find “pre-crime” would be unethical and completely counterproductive. After all, one of the mechanisms by which the criminal justice system functions is by convincing potential criminals that not committing crimes means they don’t get punished. Punishing them anyway means that deterrent is lost.
Completely agree, Grumman; but is it even ethical to give widely varying sentences, or refuse parole, based on these scans? Isn’t that almost literally thought crime?
Is it ethical to distinguish between intentional murder and an unintended homicide? Is it ethical to arrest someone for planning murder before they kill someone?
Some “thoughts” are indeed criminal, or relevant to how we treat crimes.
One of the many things that I hate about science journalism is that it virtually always reports only the existence of a result but not the strength of the correlation. Say that a study finds that 61% of people who smoke pot sneeze while 59% of those who don’t smoke pot sneeze. You’ll get screaming headlines saying "MARIJUANA LINKED TO SNEEZING but the articles won’t mention that the actual percentages of the two groups who sneeze were very close.
This article starts by saying “scientists found brain scans can predict with startling accuracy the likelihood that criminals will run afoul of the law again”. Nothing in the interview tells us exactly how startling accurate the predictions are.
I’d be in support of using this kind of technology to do early interventions on kids. But not for punishment.
The ethical problem for me is the idea that we’d be punishing people for something they can’t help–at least not easily. No one chooses to be impulsive. Maybe something like this can be used to shape a rehabilitation plan, though.
The ethical problem is inequality of wealth. Poverty/absence of life opportunites/social exclusion are the leading cause of ‘crime’. Period.
From the abstract:
And a little later on:
(bolding mine)
The “almost double” comes from a statistical model that extracts the effect of ACC brain activity independent of covariates like drug and alcohol use. From a purely scientific point of view, an “almost double” relative risk ratio is pretty big. Still, in this study standard psychopathy screening tools had much greater predictive value, with a 10- to 30-fold relative risk ratio.
Practically speaking, I think we should have room for a prison psychiatrist to say “holy fuck that guy is a complete psychopath and shouldn’t be released”. Don’t we already have that to some degree, with prison officials deciding parole? But the particular brain scan here doesn’t have enough predictive value, IMO, to decide whether to release someone.
Translating between statistical and legal standards, I think that a 30-fold relative risk ratio is approaching “beyond a reasonable doubt”, but 2-fold definitely does not.
The people who are discussed in this article are folks who have already been convicted of crimes. It tells us nothing at all about whether people who have no criminal history and may be more impulsive (whether measured with a psychological test/evaluation alone or augmented with some type of brain scan) are more likely to commit crimes. This kind of research is very far from determining that someone with a certain pattern of brain activity is going to commit a criminal act, despite the headline.
As already pointed out by others, it is a part of the sentencing process as well as evaluating people for parole to look at different factors, often including psychological factors. How accurate these kinds of assessments may be or how well they are implemented is another whole set of questions.
One problem is that some perfectly normal people have so called criminal brain scans. Neuroscientist James Fallon did a scan of his own brain and discovered that he shared the same unusual lack of activity in the orbital cortex found in the psychopaths he studied, but he does not exhibit the typical personality traits and behaviors of psychopathy. (article: A Neuroscientist Uncovers A Dark Secret)
Another consideration is that it works the other way, too: criminal defendants are increasingly using the “it’s not me, it’s my danged ol’ brain and/or genes” defense. A guy named Bradley Waldroup, who murdered his wife with a machete for no apparent reason other than an argument, successfully avoided the death penalty for murder and was instead convicted of manslaughter and attempted murder after testimony that his “warrior gene” genetic makeup and violent upbringing predisposed him to violence. Similarly, neuroscience is being used in court by criminal defendants trying to establish that their abnormal brains predispose them to violence and should mitigate their punishment. (another article: Criminal Minds: Use of Neuroscience as a Defense Skyrockets)
What is wrong with predicting crime? unless we are talking about punishing people for something they might do in the future i see no problem with simply predicting it and attempting to stop it.
Probably be simpler to close down Wall Street.
Which is why I say it should have no influence outside of sentencing. For example, someone with criminal inclinations who does not commit crimes out of fear of punishment is doing exactly what the criminal justice system is supposed to make them do. It is only those who are proven to lack the required safeguards against committing crimes (as demonstrated by the fact that they actually committed a crime) and are prone to re-offend who should be singled out.
This is not an approach that I find at all convincing. So he wants to be judged as the mere sum of his genes and environment, lacking any self-determination? Fine. Put him down like any other animal whose temperament has shown it to be a danger to people.
Except that these brain scans are not very effective at being able to predict who is prone to reoffend.
I am the son of one sociologist, and the husband of another sociologist, who ended up becoming a special ed teacher. So I definitely understand this argument. But I just don’t think it is this simple. And even if those things were the “leading cause”, it doesn’t mean they are even 50 percent of the cause. I think there is a lot that is innate.
I don`t see how a brain scan can be that accurate to predict criminal behaviour. After all, the choice of yes or no engaging in to a criminal act is not solely based on a genetic disorder?
No, but it’s based on your neurology, which is based on your genes (and other factors).
This will of course become an increasing issue for the criminal justice system. I think we will find many more genes like this, as well as non-genetic physiological causes (e.g. trauma to a specific area).
This is why IMO the concept of free will needs to be thrown out in terms of sentencing. It’s a cherished concept for many but it doesn’t make any sense.
With it the notion of “punishment” has to go also (as it has in many developed countries already).
That’s not to say criminals should go free. Rehabilitation will help some, others need to be incarcerated for everyone’s protection. And there is still the deterrent factor.