Cathy Luy

Oliver St. John

FIQWS 10103

22 November 2019

Neuroscience has made its way into the United States criminal justice system when brain scans started to make an appearance in courtrooms; the study of the nervous system and brain started influencing the way people who are suspected or convicted of criminal offenses are apprehended, prosecuted, defended, sentenced and punished. Within the past century, there have been advancements in how neuroscientists understand the brain; however, neuroscience should not be used as a reason to allow leniency to those who have committed unlawful actions. 

The first time brain imaging was used in a courtroom was with John W. Hinckley’s case On March 30, 1981; Hinckley open fired at the United States President Ronald Reagan at Washington Hilton in Washington, D.C., where the President spoke at a labor convention. Hickley fired six shots towards the president. The first one hitting press secretary James Brady in the head. The second one hit policeman Thomas Delahanty’s back. The third bullet missed and hit a building behind the President. The fourth one hit secret service agent Timothy McCarthy in the chest. The fifth one also missed and hit the bullet-proof glass of the President’s limousine. The sixth bullet bounced off the limousine and hit President Ronald Reagan in the chest, the bullet grazed a rib and lodged in his lung. During his trial, John W. Hinckley said that his actions were all done to impress an actress that he fancied. Dr. David Bear did a CAT scan on Hinckley, showing a widened sulci, which was linked to schizophrenia. The CAT scan among other things resulted in John W. Hinckley being found not guilty due to insanity for all thirteen of his counts. Instead, he was placed at St Elizabeth’s Hospital until he was deemed no longer a threat to himself and others (Linder 4-9). Was Hinckley’s ruling just?

There have been multiple advancements in the technology that is available to use in order to understand the brain. As Morris discusses:

Magnetic resonance is a physical technique that has been developing in physics and chemistry labs throughout the past half-century… this is hardly surprising given that the big leap forward in neuroscience made possible by MRI scanning has only been made in the last few decades… not only fMRI scanning, but experimental psychology, pharmacology, anatomy, surgery, biophysics, and biochemistry all contribute to an understanding of the brain (Morris 170)

Throughout the decades, neuroscience has become an increasingly popular study, with many breakthroughs. MRI scanning and other advancements, from the use of physical imaging of brains and the activities of specific parts of the brain, have enhanced the people’s understanding of the human brain. However, people only really started to understand the brain within the last century. How certain are we that the results of brain scans and the understanding of them are accurate?

With the progress made in neuroscience, there is a better understanding of the brain’s development during each stage of life and how certain things affect our brains but there still isn’t a complete understanding of the brain’s functions. Neuroscience allows sciences and doctors to identify specific aspects that are abnormal of the human brain, but it is still uncertain if they are completely sure of the effects parts of the brain have on the person. Like “when the frontal lobes are compromised, people become disinhibited, and startling behaviors can emerge. Disinhibition is commonly seen in patients with frontotemporal dementia, a tragic disease in which the frontal and temporal lobes degenerate. With the loss of that brain tissue, patients lose the ability to control their hidden impulses” (Eagleman). With neuroscience, there is a better understanding of why someone did what they did but their actions are still based on “hidden impulses”. The person should still be responsible for their actions. 

Just because the brain is abnormal doesn’t necessarily mean that they committed the crime unwillingly or without their knowledge. When looking at Charles Whitman’s case, he was a mass murderer who went to the University of Texas at Austin’s campus and killed and wounded many. Prior to going to the University of Texas at Austin, he killed both his mother and his wife. The night before the shooting, he wrote a suicide note, stating that he notices a change in his behaviors and thoughts. After his death, an autopsy was done and it became known that he had a tumor growing in his brain. The tumor was called glioblastoma (Lavergne). In this case, although Whitman had a tumor in his brain, and could be considered mentally ill, he was still aware of his actions; and hence was responsible for them. 

Relating to The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, a fair trial is guaranteed (Harris 352; D’Addio 1992). Therefore, people who have no control over their own actions and have mental illnesses should be tried differently compared to mentally healthy people, but that also raises a problem of to what degree should they be tried differently? When including such complex components, like the brain, it is harder to guarantee a fair trial for everyone, which is something we still struggle with even to this day. Although they should be tried differently, that does not mean that they should be able to not be given a free pass.

As part of the symposium “Criminal Behavior and the Brain: When Law and Neuroscience Collide” for Fordham Law, Elizabeth Bennett did a piece on neuroscience and criminal law. When determining the impact neuroscience has on criminal law, she said that “it is likely that neuroscience will discover evidence of brain disorders that will expand the definition of excuse or add to the list of acceptable excuses” (Bennett 450). Besides providing more information about the defendant and figuring out the reasons behind their actions, the effect of using neuroscience when dealing with our justice system is allowing people to have an excuse to not be punished as severely as they should be. Even with the John W. Hinckley case, he pleaded insanity and therefore was found not guilty of injuring many and attempting to assassinate President Ronald Reagan. Although not the same case, another assassination attempt was Giuseppe Zangara’s attempt to kill President-elect Franklin D. Roosevelt. Zangara was executed because of the crimes he committed, while Hinckley was free of charge and was placed into a hospital where he was free to go when proven that he would no longer be a threat (Kobke). Hinckley was never punished for the crimes he committed; that should have been on his records regardless of if he was insane or not. The whole purpose of the criminal justice system is to punish those who have convicted criminal offenses, so Hinckley going free of any of his counts defeats the purpose of the criminal justice system. Legal processes are not solely conducted on evidence and the black and white aspect of whether someone committed a crime or not.

Throughout the years, there has been a drastic increase in the number of cases that used neuroimaging to prove the defendant as innocent, to lessen, or get rid of their sentence. A research study done on previous United States court cases between 2005 to 2012 involving neuroscience, specifically in criminal defense, found that “defense attorneys are introducing neurobiological evidence across the board in serious felony cases, and not just in bifurcated capital sentencing hearings following a conviction of first-degree murder… what started as about 100 judicial opinions per year discussing neurobiological evidence in criminal law in 2005 climbed to around 250–300 opinions in 2012” (Farahany 492). With this increase, neuroscience is only allowing more people to go unpunished for the crimes they committed. “Surveys of Massachusetts’s prisons and county houses of corrections estimate that there are approximately 23,000 prisoners in Massachusetts county (11,850) and state (11,000) correctional facilities and that between 1,150 and 4,600 (5% to 20%) inmates suffer from schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or another major mental illness” (Hartwell 89). If all those people who have major mental illnesses tried for a lesser sentence or no sentence at all, that means that thousands of people would not be punished for the actions they committed.  

Some may argue that people who have mental illnesses do not belong in prison because it is unfit for their conditions. Prisons do not provide enough resources and funding in order for people who have mental illnesses to get help. Based on a breakdown of state prison expenditures in 2001, “salaries, wages, and benefits made up about two-thirds of State prison operating expenditures, nationwide… other operating costs covered a wide variety of outlays, such as inmate health care, food, utilities, supplies, fees, commissions, and contractual services” (Stephan 4). In addition, “between 1982 and 2010, spending on education varied between 29% and 33% of total state expenditures, spending on public welfare varied between 22% and 25%, spending on highways varied between 5.7% and 8.6%, and spending on health care and hospitals varied between 6.2% and 7.5%” (Kyckelhahn 1). It is evident that the healthcare of inmates is not the priority of the state. The sole purpose of a prison is to remove the criminals from society, so there is no focus on the mental aspect of a prison. This, however, doesn’t mean that people who have committed a crime don’t belong there. There are people who have pleaded insanity cases and have gotten away without punishment. This does not mean that they shouldn’t be punished the same way any other person is because that would undermine the purpose of the criminal justice system. There are many flaws surrounding prisons and there are things that need to be improved regarding the current criminal justice system from wrongful convictions, the treatment of inmates, the conditions in a prison and improving medical treatments. If medical treatments for people who are convicted of a crime and have mental illnesses are provided, not only are the convicted getting help, the criminal justice system is doing its job by punishing them. 

There are many different situations that must be accounted for when discussing whether neuroscience should play a role in criminal justice or not, but ultimately, even with the current advancements in neuroscience, it is not fit to be used as a reason to allow leniency to those who have committed unlawful actions. The purpose of the criminal justice system is to punish the people who have convicted criminal offenses and to remove them from a social environment, ultimately protecting the citizens and people. To have a study of the nervous system and brain impact the way the criminal justice system works is unjust. 

Work Cited Page

Bennett, Elizabeth. “Neuroscience and criminal law: have we been getting it wrong for centuries ad where do we go from here?” 2016. https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5237&context=flr

D’addio, David J. “Dual Sovereignty and the Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel.” The Yale Law Journal, 1 June 2004, http://www.jstor.org/stable/4135787.

Eagleman, David. “The Brain on Trial.” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 1 Aug. 2018, https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/07/the-brain-on-trial/308520/.

Farahany, Nita A. “Neuroscience and Behavioral Genetics in US Criminal Law: an Empirical Analysis.” OUP Academic, Oxford University Press, 14 Jan. 2016, https://academic.oup.com/jlb/article/2/3/485/1918085.

Harris, David. “The Right to a Fair Trial in Criminal Proceedings as a Human Right.” International and Comparative Law Quarterly, vol. 16, no. 2, 1967, pp. 352–378., doi:10.1093/iclqaj/16.2.352.

Kobke, Sidney. “The Newspapers and the Zangara Case: A Study of American Crime Reporting – Sidney Kobke, 1936.” SAGE Journals, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/107769903601300301.

Kyckelhahn, Tracey. “State Corrections Expenditures, FY 1982-2010” December 2012, https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/scefy8210.pdf

Lavergne, Gary M. A Sniper in the Tower: the Charles Whitman Murders. University of North Texas Press, 1997.

Linder, Douglas. “The Trial of John W. Hinckley, Jr.” SSRN, 17 Nov. 2007, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1030556.

Morris, Andrew. Why Icebergs Float: Exploring Science in Everyday Life. UCL Press, 2016.

Stephan, James J. “State Prison Expenditures, 2001” June 2004, https://static.prisonpolicy.org/scans/bjs/spe01.pdf