In the future, we may wish to. I agree with that. I think that, first of all, the fact that everybody in the audience could control themselves raising their hands gives me some comfort as i walk out the door, but one of the problems with the disconnect that i was alluding to earlier between how science deals with this question and how lawyers deal with this question is that you actually get a fundamental disconnect between the two systems. So you mentioned that lack of emotional control or lack of ability to control your preferences might lead to insanity, but, in fact, in most jurisdictions as you know, thats not true. After hanky was acquitted under the American Law Institute test because he could not control his behavior, congress in most state jurisdictions changed the law, got rid of the lack of emotional test, the a. L. I. Test and now in most jurisdictions, the nontest requires that you demonstrate that you cant distinguish right from wrong. So now we have, and again, the law us
Criminal Justice System . To date, we havent. In the future, we may wish to. I agree with that. I think that, first of all, the fact that everybody in the audience could control themselves raising their hands gives me some comfort as i walk out the door, but one of the problems with the disconnect that i was alluding to earlier between how science deals with this question and how lawyers deal with this question is that you actually get a fundamental disconnect between the two systems. So you mentioned that lack of emotional control or lack of ability to control your preferences might lead to insanity, but, in fact, in most jurisdictions as you know, thats not true. After hanky was acquitted under the American Law Institute test because he could not control his behavior, congress in most state jurisdictions changed the law, got rid of the lack of emotional test, the a. L. I. Test and now in most jurisdictions, the nontest requires that you demonstrate that you cant distinguish right fro
Particular brain structures with or people who we share particular environmental and brain similarities to. So we might need to start thinking about more particularized notions of conduct based on what we would expect of a person who has that type of brain structure who had these types of environmental factors and then start to think about how we want to treat them. Do we want to hold those people responsible for their actions or less responsible for their actions. Are there certain people who would be better subject to medical treatment instead of incarceration. Are there certainly people who we actually think would be better off in prison than not being in prison . Those types of decisions, i think, are going to be much more useful coming out of the neuroscience in the near term. In the long term, maybe we can get to the point where we make individualized decisionmaking, but so far it hasnt actually panned out. To all of you, do you think that it would be appropriate to keep this out
Criminal Justice System . To date, we havent. In the future, we may wish to. I agree with that. I think that, first of all, the fact that everybody in the audience could control themselves raising their hands gives me some comfort as i walk out the door, but one of the problems with the disconnect that i was alluding to earlier between how science deals with this question and how lawyers deal with this question is that you actually get a fundamental disconnect between the two systems. So you mentioned that lack of emotional control or lack of ability to control your preferences might lead to insanity, but, in fact, in most jurisdictions as you know, thats not true. After hanky was acquitted under the American Law Institute test because he could not control his behavior, congress in most state jurisdictions changed the law, got rid of the lack of emotional test, the a. L. I. Test and now in most jurisdictions, the nontest requires that you demonstrate that you cant distinguish right fro
But if youre really good in Political Science or history, you might go to law school and you havent taken math for a very long time. I think the reality is that the courts have to get up to speed. That was really the lessson of the daubert case and kelly frye as well, the lawyers, judges, the system more generally has to be able to evaluate the validity of proper expert testimony. We cant get around it. Its in the courtroom. The problem with latent fingerprints and firearms and handwriting and arson investigation and the list goes on and on as you know better than i, the problem is those were never actually evaluated. The court simply grandfathered it in or never even bothered to look at it. I can assure you that the Forensic Sciences, the nond. N. A. Stuff is not brain science. It doesnt take a kent to look at the Scientific Methods underlying a lot of the forensic techniques and say that its mostly junk. I do think your point is well taken that when you get to genetics and you get to