Criminal Law

Teen Brains on Trial: Law, Adolescence and Neurosciece

/ Matthew Clemente / Leave a comment

Teen Brains on Trial: Law, Adolescence and Neurosciece

Recently, NPR’s Morning Edition, ran a story about use of neuroscience and brain scans in court.  Such evidence has been most effective in criminal trial involving adolescents, who scientists explain have brains that are not fully developed.  

Here is a description of the segment:  

It’s not just people who go on trial these days. It’s their brains.

 

More and more lawyers are arguing that some defendants deserve special consideration because they have brains that are immature or impaired, says Nita Farahany, a professor of law and philosophy at Duke University who has been studying the use of brain science in court.

 

About 5 percent of murder trials now involve some neuroscience, Farahany says. “There’s a steady increase of defendants seeking to introduce neuroscience to try to reduce the extent to which they’re responsible or the extent to which they’re punished for a crime,” she says.

 

Farahany was a featured speaker at the Society for Neuroscience meeting in San Diego this week. Also featured were several brain scientists who are uncomfortable with the way courts are using brain research.

 

When lawyers turn to neuroscience, often what’s at issue is a defendant’s competency, Farahany says. So a defense lawyer might argue that “you weren’t competent to have pled guilty because of some sort of brain injury,” she says, or that you weren’t competent to have confessed to a police officer after being arrested.

The approach has been most successful with cases involving teenagers, Farahany says. . . . 

Teen Brains on Trial: Law, Adolescence and Neurosciece

/ Matthew Clemente / Leave a comment

Teen Brains on Trial: Law, Adolescence and Neurosciece

Recently, NPR’s Morning Edition, ran a story about use of neuroscience and brain scans in court.  Such evidence has been most effective in criminal trial involving adolescents, who scientists explain have brains that are not fully developed.  

Here is a description of the segment:  

It’s not just people who go on trial these days. It’s their brains.

 

More and more lawyers are arguing that some defendants deserve special consideration because they have brains that are immature or impaired, says Nita Farahany, a professor of law and philosophy at Duke University who has been studying the use of brain science in court.

 

About 5 percent of murder trials now involve some neuroscience, Farahany says. “There’s a steady increase of defendants seeking to introduce neuroscience to try to reduce the extent to which they’re responsible or the extent to which they’re punished for a crime,” she says.

 

Farahany was a featured speaker at the Society for Neuroscience meeting in San Diego this week. Also featured were several brain scientists who are uncomfortable with the way courts are using brain research.

 

When lawyers turn to neuroscience, often what’s at issue is a defendant’s competency, Farahany says. So a defense lawyer might argue that “you weren’t competent to have pled guilty because of some sort of brain injury,” she says, or that you weren’t competent to have confessed to a police officer after being arrested.

The approach has been most successful with cases involving teenagers, Farahany says. . . . 

Stemming the School to Prison Pipeline

/ Matthew Clemente / Leave a comment

Stemming the School to Prison Pipeline

One of the consequences of “zero tolerance” school discipline is what critics call a “school to prison pipeline.” Under zero-tolerance polices, when students who commit even minor misdemeanors school officials are rqeuired to contact the police.  However, the Broward County, Florida school district, one of the largest school districts in the United States, recently announced that it will be ending zero-tolerance and handling minor crimes in house.  

Here is how the podcast began: 

In Florida, one of the nation’s largest school districts has overhauled its discipline policies with a single purpose in mind — to reduce the number of children going into the juvenile justice system.

It’s a move away from so-called “zero tolerance” policies that require schools to refer even minor misdemeanors to the police. Critics call it a “school to prison pipeline.”

Civil rights and education activists say the policy can be a model for the nation.

Under a new program adopted by the Broward County School District, non-violent misdemeanors — even those that involve alcohol, marijuana or drug paraphernalia — will now be handled by the schools instead of the police.

Radiolab: Blame

/ Matthew Clemente / Leave a comment

Radiolab: Blame

Recenlty, WNYC‘s Radiolab ran one of the most intense and interesting podcasts I have heard in quite sometime.  The podcast, titled “Blame,” is about the intersection of law, technology, and moral responsibility.   

The first story, “Fault Line,” is about a New Jersey man epilepsy may or may not have play a role in his child pornography addiction.  Here is a description of “Fault Line”: 

Kevin* is a likable guy who lives with his wife in New Jersey. And he’s on probation after serving time in a federal prison for committing a disturbing crime. Producer Pat Walters helps untangle a difficult story about accountability, and a troubling set of questions about identity and self-control. Kevin’s doctor, neuroscientist Orrin Devinsky, claims that what happened to Kevin could happen to any of us under similar circumstances — in a very real way, it wasn’t entirely his fault. But prosecutor Lee Vartan explains why he believes Kevin is responsible just the same, and should have served the maximum sentence.

The second story, “Forget about Blame?”, is a conversation between the hosts of Radiolab with David Eagleman, a neuroscientist who argues that the law should forget about retributivism and blame. Eagleman defends the “my brain made me do it” defense and suggests that neuroscience should fundamentally alter how we think about criminal law.

Here is a description of the story: 

Nita Farahany, who’s been following the growing field of Neurolaw for years now, helps uncover what seems to be a growing trend — defendants using brain science to argue that they aren’t entirely at fault. Neuroscientist David Eagleman thinks this is completely wrongheaded, and argues for tossing out blame as an old-fashioned, unfair way of thinking about the law. According to David and Amy Phenix, a clinical and forensic psychologist who relies on statistics, it makes more sense to focus on the risk of committing more crimes. But Jad and Robert can’t help wondering whether that’s really a world they want to live in. 

Finally, the third story, “Dear Hector”, is a remarkable tale of forgiveness.  It is about a father who befriends his daughter’s murderer.  

Reporter Bianca Giaever brings us a story of forgiveness that’s nearly impossible to comprehend — even for the man at the center of it, an octogenarian named Hector Black.