Michael Gazzaniga: The Criminal Brain

So let’s say brain science in 15, 20 years really understands why a certain population of people, say psychopaths, behave the way they do. OK, we know it, we got it. And let’s say we have figured out a treatment for them.

So you got the psychopath. He has done the crime. We hold him responsible. Now we’re at the decision. Do we treat him or put him in the slammer? Right, because we now know if we can treat him, they’re back to the normal population, they’re back doing normal things again.

Does that satisfy in us the sense of justice that should be done to this person? Does that satisfy our built-in sense of retribution, which I think humans have in spades? Can people live with the fact that somebody who carried out a crime against their family, or their body, or their property is just simply fixed, so he doesn’t do that stuff anymore? Or do they want this other component? And does that other component exist?

That is the discussion we should be having. We shouldn’t be confusing the fact that someone with a slight or even a serious brain disorder, are they responsible or not. We should have the legal category in our country, which we don’t: guilty but insane, not not guilty because insane.

We should get the responsibility issue clear and then, as a society, we have to decide, well, what are we going to do about that person? Just think how interesting it gets. I think our time would be better spent trying to sort that out because I think down the pike there will be treatments. There will be more effective treatments.

The reason why it isn’t a burning issue now is because none of our so-called treatments, or rehabs, or what have you are that great. The recidivism rate just sits there around 63% no matter what you do. So there is just isolation of just putting people in institutions of one kind or another.

I think by clearing up this responsibility question, we focus on the real question of what does our society decide to do about this person, and that’s a tough one.