Author Archives: krayakar

Time to Test Corporate Leaders to Weed out Psychopaths

Posted on by
Reply

Upon hearing the term “psychopaths” on Wall Street, more often than not the image of Christian Bale in the blockbuster Psycho comes to mind. Charming, shark-like, and brilliant, these cunning business moguls earn by day and kill by night. However, this stereotype is far from true. Generally a psychopath is an individual who is unable to empathize with others, not one who has the tendency to brutally murder others. This isn’t to say though, that they wouldn’t ruin your life given the chance. In Mitchell Anderson’s article “Time to Test Corporate Leaders to Weed out Psychopaths,” he goes into what constitutes a psychopath and how these empathetically immune individuals are potentially running the economy straight into the ground.

Anderson describes psychopathy as a genetically inherited biochemical condition that prevents them from feeling normal human empathy. This leads those born with this deficiency to be unable to understand and share the feeling of others, consequently leading to a distrust of anyone else. Anderson then explains this lacking of empathy causes for investments to be made in the interest of only the psychopathic broker. This selfish form of business in the long run cause markets to crash, the need for larger bailouts, and the destruction of American savings. There is in essence a multiplier effect because this kind of business draws in those psychopathic business people who climb their way to the top and run a fair percentage of fortune 500 companies.

This multiplier effect is scarier than it sounds because it means any bailout money thrown at the problem will only sustain the issue further. If tossing money at a fiscal problem doesn’t work, then what will? This means then that the only way to move forward in a stable economy that sustains itself would be through having empathetic and moral leaders. I believe that CEOs should be tested for empathetic tendencies because so many lives and livelihoods can be put in jeopardy. Any CEO exhibiting typical charm but bullies others and creates chaos to mask their own actions should be under close watch by the rest of the company. In a crashing market like ours, we need great leaders, not selfish ones.

http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2011/11/21/Corporate-Psychopaths/

Brains scans measure racial bias

Posted on by
Reply

http://www.yaledailynews.com/news/2011/nov/14/brain-scans-measure-racial-bias/

It is common knowledge that a degree of racial bias tends to color juries’ decisions. As much as jurors try (or don’t try) to remain unbiased in their verdicts, all convicted individuals deserve an unbiased trial. In her article “Brain scans measure racial bias,” Jacqueline Sahlberg discusses Yale Law School’s novel use of brains scans to predict jurors’ racial bias better than previous testing methods. This new method of testing holds implications in the development and growth of neurolaw because brain scans can be employed to ensure a fairer trial.

Currently, the implicit association test is used as the standard of measuring racial bias of individuals, and predictions are made based on the reaction time of individuals asked to match positive or negatives adjectives with peoples of different race. A modest correlation exists when using this test, but the new brain scans have been suggested as the next step in decreasing bias in the courtroom. The brain scans use fMRI to predict the racial bias’ of potential jurors, a fairly developed technology that measures changes in brain blood flow to indicate which portions of the brain are active when specific stimulations are administered. In the past, fMRIs tended to emphasize a single region’s response to stimuli instead of looking at the entire brain. When Yale observed the holistic changes in brain blood flow, fMRI had a higher correlation with the predicted verdict than did the IAT when theoretical questions regarding monetary compensation in employment discrimination cases were posed.

These results are significant in that they validate the use of neurolaw to correct and create an overall better court system, easing the minds of wary critics. However, the fMRIs a long ways from being the new standard. The high cost of $1000 per participant is a large barrier for daily use, and until these costs are ameliorated, these scans are not a viable option for juror bias testing. The article proves the efficacy of employing neuroscience to create a fairer and more efficient justice system.

http://www.yaledailynews.com/news/2011/nov/14/brain-scans-measure-racial-bias/

Dishonesty detectors: a criminally flawed technology

Posted on by
Reply

As if the airport isn’t stressful enough, a new machine intended to uncover physical signs of lying and nervousness may be used to single out possible terrorists. The article discusses the government’s new toy, FAST, an acronym for Future Attribute Screening Technology. The technology incorporates “thermal cameras, microphones, and a laser radar that can measure heart rate and perspiration” (Rennie). In trial runs aiming to detect malicious intent, a success rate of about 80% was reached, though the details of false positives and false negatives remain unknown.

There are obvious problems with the technology, such as the arrogant assumption that tense muscles and tachycardia automatically point toward terrorism. Though people recognize that FAST has a long way to go before being instituted in airports, the idea that the technology already exists is disconcerting. And if FAST expands from biometric collection to actual fMRIs (which seems impossible to install in an airport setting), there is the problem that no gold standard image of the “lying brain” exists. Science can compare a generally truthful brain to a deceitful one, but without the honest brain as a quantifier, the lying scan is ambiguous and alone.

But where is the line? When can “for the safety of the people” be invalidated as an excuse? Once upon a time, our bodies were private, but airports have already employed and paraded the controversial body scan. FAST attempts to read and interpret our emotions. Are our brains next?

http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/savvy-scientist/dishonesty-detectors-a-criminally-flawed-technology/101

Training Helps Officers Deal with Mentally Ill

Posted on by
Reply

In the 1980’s, Texas county police officers often responded to crisis situations involving mentally illness very crudely. It was often seen that these police officers would arrive in an ill-equipped vehicle that did not separate the driver from potentially violent patients, therefore necessitating another officer to physically subdue them for the duration of the ride. From there, they brought them back to the mental illness unit of the county jail for incarceration. This method was inefficient and violated a number of civil rights.  Gloria Padilla discusses the evolution of the practice in Bexar County to the status quo in her article Training Helps Officers Deal with Mentally Ill, explaining how a little bit of training can go a long way in preserving the efficiency of incarceration and protecting the rights of US citizens.

Padilla explains that in Bexar country, officers and deputies are now required to receive at least 40 hours of crisis intervention training, a large increase from the originally required16 hours. This training helps officers to accurately assess a crisis situation as well as to identify the signs and symptoms associated with mental illness. The training also covers commonly presecribed antipsychotic drugs and teaches officers to associate medications with specific mental disorders. By educating officers on different drugs, they are able to judge and evaluate how to interact and how to manage a crisis. For example, if Stelazine, Flupenthixol or Loxapine were to be the known medications taken, the officers would know that the patient is most likely schizophrenic. In addition to the advancements in educations, all vehicles are now equipped with cages to separate violent passengers from the drivers, dismissing the need for another police officer to forcefully subdue them.

The education kills two birds with one stone, allowing officers to become more effective at handling crisis as a whole as well as dealing with mentally ill patients. Taking the substantial incidence of mental illness into consideration, law enforcement should be able to understand how to handle such situations. This training should not be limited to Bexar County but should be executed globally. Education on the mentally ill can prevent unnecessary incarcerations and improve the efficacy of law enforcement as a whole. With law enforcement more aware of their responsibilities and power, an individual’s civil rights can also be preserved.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/columnists/gloria_padilla/article/Training-helps-officers-deal-with-mentally-ill-2241568.php

“Killers do have a ‘psychopath’ gene but we need to understand what makes them kill”

Posted on by
Reply

“Killers do have a ‘psychopath’ gene but we need to understand what makes them kill”

Michael Hanlon

Evil does not have a medically nor psychologically defined term. It is a concept made by man to counter, “good” or the maintenance of some moral code. Dr. Baron Cohen, a prominent neuroscientist, argues that people who are recognized as “evil” (i,e Anders Breivik, Joseph Mengele) lack an empathy center in their brain. They are unable to recognize and to an extent share feelings with other individuals, causing them to be indifferent to their emotions and desires. This is explained however, by Michael Hanlon in his article “Killers do have a ‘psychopath’ gene but we need to understand what makes them kill” where Baron-Cohen’s description is lacking a certain component to it. To understand why killers kill, Hanlon shows that murderers are deficient in being able to empathize OR sympathize with others

Hanlon goes on to elaborate that empathy is what defines how cold and rational you are, but it is sympathy that gives you the incentive to act. He explains how certain criminals, especially the unconventional ones, can be aroused by violence and other deviant acts. He says that this arousal points to more than just a lack of empathy but in addition a lack of other characteristics like sympathy, and a morbid desire to inflict harm on others. He then concludes by describing how evil is too vague and unspecific of a term, in which lewd acts committed are a result of an imperfect brain.

I believe that he is right in this aspect, but in addition I feel that those psychopaths who are violent need to be studied further to understand their circuitry and how they process the world around them. I feel as though this would be beneficial to science as a since it will give further information and perspective on how to rehabilitate these individuals. The current standard of treatment is ineffective at best with according to some statistics, 1/6 inmates experiencing some form of mental illness. Rehabilitation and reintegration should be the objective for our justice system, and further information is required to help tweak the system into its full potential. I disagree with the idea of removing anyone exhibiting psychopathic indicators since it violates civil rights, and plenty exist who are non violent (atop financial institutions). Knowing how to treat them should something happen I feel is the main concern with killers and should be the new focus of research.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2053688/Ian-Brady-Anders-Breivik-psycopath-genes-need-understand-them.html

http://jnnp.bmj.com/content/75/7/945

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/the_spectator/2011/09/does_evil_exist_neuroscientists_say_no_.single.html

Psychotics Don’t Premeditate Crimes

Posted on by
Reply

Recently there has been a spike in the number of publicized shootings in the United States. Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was almost fatally shot in the head, and last week there were 8 pronounced dead in the Seal Beach shootings. Both of these shooters, Andrew Loughner and Scott Dekraai, now seek the insanity defense for schizophetrenia and anti-psychotic use for bipolar disorder. Robert David Jaffee delves into these pleas for lessened sentences in his article “Psychotics Don’t Premeditate Crimes.” Jaffee, a diagnosed schizophrenic, argues that premeditated crimes do not arise from individuals with psychosis and that a psychotic’s actions are unplanned and generally impulsive and reactive. They are anything but malicious.

Jaffee argues his stance by pointing out the definitions of psychosis which by the DSM IV is “a loss of contact with reality, usually including false beliefs about what is taking place or who one is (delusions) and seeing or hearing things that aren’t there (hallucinations).” He notes then that those shooters, (Dekraii, Loughner and Breivik (Sweden shootings)), all premeditated their actions prior to their respective crimes. These individuals were also extremely tranquil and placid following the crime, which is uncharacteristic of a textbook psychotic. Jaffee culminates his piece by citing the character of Iago from Othello, who is the ideal villain and representation of evil, not mentally ill. Jaffee then goes onto describe briefly his own experiences as a schizophrenic and how Loughner is a complete misrepresentation of individuals with schizophrenia.

I believe that Jaffee is correct in his analysis of these shooters, in that psychosis precludes premeditation. A psychotic involved in such a violent crime would most likely correlate a reactive impulse and result in extreme anguish and emotional break. Though these individuals are ill, I believe that their actions are a result of an evil predisposition. Given what I know from the cases, it seems that all of these incidents were well thought out, and the individuals feel no remorse for their actions and do not deserve to plead not guilty through the insanity defense. In addition, I believe that these criminals also taint the general populations perceptions of those with mental illness, and create a susceptibility in the future to perhaps strip mentally ill individuals from their civil rights.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-david-jaffee/mental-illness-murder_b_1014312.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001925/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Othello

Brains of Violent Offenders, Substance Abusers Differ

Posted on by
Reply

An underlying stereotype that lies that exists today is that the brains of substance abusers and violent offenders are one in the same, or at least similar. Common sense points to the potential gaps in foresight and judgment that are exhibited as both of these groups are caught and forced to be held responsible for their actions in a court of law. These prospective deficiencies point to a physiological lack of activity in the prefrontal cortex (PFC), which is responsible for judgment and foresight. In a recent Medscape article titled “ Brains of Violent Offenders, Substance Abusers” Differ”, Deborah Brauser dives into the physiological differences between individuals who present with substance abuse disorders (SUDs) and violent offenders. The article indicates a significant deviation from the conventional way of thinking of substance abusers and violent offenders.

The results of the article demonstrated that those individuals who faced an SUD generally showed lower grey matter volume within the PFC and lower inhibition response scores as compared with a control using MRI. This grey matter deficiency within SUD patients differs from the violent offender groups who showed greater grey matter volume in the mesolimbic reward system and no differences in grey matter within the PFC when compared to controls. The article suggests that treatment associated with treatments and rehabilitation of violent offenders should be tailored to improving behavioral control and with reward/punishment functions. Researchers are most intrigued by the increase in mesolimbic brain activity, since generally violent offenders present with diminished amygdala function, which impede the process of emotion.

Overall, what needs to be configured is a more specific plan for individual patients presenting with violent offenses. This study provided the research and the rehabilitation arenas which proved distinct differences between the two treatment groups, and with this date more can be tailored to each offenders treatment and hopes for rehabilitation. Another important correlation that needs to be further tested is then whether or not violent offenders behaviors are directly linked to their overactive mesolimbic system. Whether or not violent offenders require treatments which target and help suppress the reward pathway of the brain to rehabilitate them is a question which must be addressed in future research.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/751316

References

Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2011;68:1039-1049 – http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/68/10/1039

The End of Evil?

Posted on by
Reply


/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:”";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-language:JA;}

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/the_spectator/2011/09/does_evil_exist_neuroscientists_say_no_.single.html

In a series of provocative questions, Ron Rosenbaum delves into questions that comprise the heart of controversy between neuroscience and law – are people still responsible for their actions? What does it even mean to be evil, and if it does exist, how do we quantify it? Is “evil” just as deconstructed a concept as “free will”? Simon Baron-Cohen, author of The Science of Evil, suggests that what we perceive as evil should be reevaluated as a lack of empathy.

Baron-Cohen postulates that empathy is a gradient-dependent emotion contingent upon the pre-existing mechanical configuration of an individual’s brain. If that is so, how are we to tangibly quantify where someone lies on the empathetic scale? Our imaging skills merely tell us what is happening in the brain and where it is happening, but they do not say much in the way of why. Rosenbaum cites David Eagleman’s brain book Incognito as an example of what the future and progression of neuroscience may entail. Though Rosenbaum acknowledges the field’s scientific value, he uses the prediction as a springboard to question the potential “evilness” of neuroscience’s possibilities.

The article discusses the possibility that humans are at the mercy of their brain, influenced and/or controlled by pre-wired circuits. But what does it mean to attribute our attitudes and choices to something we cannot access or change? Rosenbaum alludes to Anders Behering Breivik, the suspect of the Oslo shootings. Are we to consider him responsible for his actions? Is he just a guy who lacks empathy, a mere victim of his brain wiring? In my opinion, regardless of the interior reasons for the crimes he committed, the exterior actions remain against our society’s laws and ingrained morals. What if excusing his behavior as an unfortunate hardware glitch is an evil act in itself?

Willingness to lie manipulated with magnets

Posted on by
1

Lie detection instruments are controversial methods of ensuring honesty in the arena of law. In general, the validity of lie detection technology as a means of addressing questions such as perjury are under heavy scrutiny and progress does not seem to be forward. In light of this, present technology has been used to manipulate an individual’s ability to deceive or lie. Mo Costandi’s discusses these recent uses of magnetism on the brain to encourage or discourage lying in patients in his article called “Willingness to lie manipulated with magnets.”

In Estonia’s University of Tartu, scientists Inga Karton and Talis Bachmann are applying transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) to different portions of the brain, specifically the prefrontal cortex, to deduce their effects on a patient’s ability to deceive or lie. TMS is used non-invasively as a means to interrupt brain activity in whatever region it was applied to. Some current functions for TMS include treating depression and other psychological disorders. Karton and Bachmann however, focused primarily on the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) in the left hemisphere and right hemispheres which functions as an area directly involved in judgments and decision-making. The results showed that when the right DLPFC activity was disrupted using TMS, the patients were statistically less inclined to lie about the subject matter tested. In contrast, when the left DLPFC was disrupted, patients had a higher tendency to lie about the subject matter.

Overall these results prove to be controversial in terms of any application legally. It is well known that decision-making and therein deception is a very complex process involving more than one region of the brain overall. This indicates that stimulation of this one area of the brain could never act as a universal truth button, ensuring honesty whenever pressed. Given our current technology and understanding of how the prefrontal cortex works and its role in decision-making, it is impossible to provide any definitive answers as evidence in the courtroom. To even be considered of using magnets as a way to prevent deceptions, the other regions of the brain must be mapped and their roles on deception must be more researched. The prefrontal cortex is a vastly encompassing region of the brain involved with many different cognitive functions ranging from personality to predicting outcomes of certain actions. It is because of our primitive understanding of the brain and this specific area of the brain, further research must be conducted to use brain scans and other similar methods as legal norms. Without additional definitive statistical proof or even modest correlations, different types of brain stimulations and tests could be rationally nor ethically be applied to legal affairs.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/neurophilosophy/2011/sep/28/1

Reference: Karton, I. & Bachmann, T. (2011). Effect of prefrontal transcranial magnetic stimulation on spontaneous truth-telling.Behavioural Brain Research, DOI: 10.1016/j.bbr.2011.07.028

How Is Neuroscience Likely to Impact the Law in the long Run? pp. 66-71

Posted on by
Reply

In a chapter from A Judge’s Guide to Neuroscience, Dr. Adina Roskies hypothesizes about the future importance of neuroscience in the practice of law. She outlines three major issues that may affect the future of neuroscience: 1) further comprehensions of the brain’s contribution to behavior and how to quantify it, 2) possible progress in treatment options, and 3) how a better, more detailed understanding of neuroscience may impact peoples’ views on “human nature, and in so doing affect policy, and indirectly, the law” (Roskies).

Roskies discusses the science of addiction, observing that MRIs of drug addicts expose the “biological bases of drug action on the nervous system,” and she hypothesizes that perhaps people will not be so harsh on people once they realize the physicality of the addiction. She even goes so far as to say that the law may even begin to treat drug addicts differently. However, it now becomes difficult to separate what the brain physically wants/needs from what an addict as a person may want/need. To deem brain chemistry responsible for the actions of drug addicts while expunging the actual person from his actions is, in kind words, questionable.

The future of neuroscience as a tool for mitigation of crimes committed by mentally ill people is also discussed. In my opinion, this use of neuroimaging is still formative because certain parameters are necessary to make those types of decisions. A “control” image must exist, a relatively unwavering idea of what every possibly affected area of the brain looks like, physically and chemically. It would also be ideal to have a generally accepted idea of what the schizophrenic brain, the autistic brain, the predisposed Alzheimer’s/Huntington’s/Parkinson’s brain look like. All these things are currently possible, but to be used in a court of law as evidence, the certainty factor of the images needs to be increased.

Roskies ends her piece by discussing responsibility, the cornerstone of neuroscience, and she alludes to the idea that “science will reveal free will to be an illusion” (Roskies). The fundamental basis for bringing neuroscience into the courtroom is a search for the truth. Will the eventual popularization of neuroscience and imaging be abused? Probably. People may one day begin to request brain scans right and left, sure that their monster of a brain had been planning their crime long before their conscious person knew about it. But is it fair to blame our actions on the structure of our brains? Are we slaves to our neurons, and if so, what then does it mean to make our own choices or to take responsibility?

http://memorylab.stanford.edu/Publications/papers/LawNeuroGuide.pdf#page=67

References of Book

Berridge, R. A. (2003). Addiction. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 25-53.

Council CtRtSEotPNR. (2003).

The Polygraph and Lie Detection: National Academies Press.

Greely, H. T., & Illes J. 2007. Neuroscience-based lie detection: The urgent need for

regulation. American Journal of Law and Medicine, 33, 377-431.

Greene J., & Cohen J. D. (2004).

For the law, neuroscience changes nothing and everything.

Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B, 359, 1775-1785.

Kiehl, K. (2006). A cognitive neuroscience perspective on psychopathy: Evidence for

paralimbic system dysfunction. Psychiatry Research, 142, 107-128.

Koob, G. F., Kenneth, L. G., & Mason, B. J. (2009).

Development of pharmacotherapies for

drug addiction: A Rosetta Stone approach. Nature Reviews: Drug Discovery, 8, 500-515.

Mitchell, T. M., Shinkareva, S. V., Carlson, A., Chang, K. M., Malave, V. L., Mason, R. A., &

Just, M. A. (2008).

Predicting human brain activity associated with the meanings of nouns.

Science, 320, 1191-1195.

Morse, S. J. (1994).

Culpability and control.  University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 142,

1587-1660.

Roskies, A. L., & Nichols, S. (2008).

Bringing moral responsibility down to earth. Journal of

Philosophy, 105, 371-388.

Stoller, S. E., & Wolpe, P. R. (2007).

Emerging neurotechnologies for lie detection and the fifth amendment. American Journal of Law and Medicine, 33, 359-375.