Posted on 03/11/2007 1:24:09 PM PDT by neverdem
I. Mr. Weinstein’s Cyst When historians of the future try to identify the moment that neuroscience began to transform the American legal system, they may point to a little-noticed case from the early 1990s. The case involved Herbert Weinstein, a 65-year-old ad executive who was charged with strangling his wife, Barbara, to death and then, in an effort to make the murder look like a suicide, throwing her body out the window of their 12th-floor apartment on East 72nd Street in Manhattan. Before the trial began, Weinstein’s lawyer suggested that his client should not be held responsible for his actions because of a mental defect — namely, an abnormal cyst nestled in his arachnoid membrane, which surrounds the brain like a spider web.
The implications of the claim were considerable. American law holds people criminally responsible unless they act under duress (with a gun pointed at the head, for example) or if they suffer from a serious defect in rationality — like not being able to tell right from wrong. But if you suffer from such a serious defect, the law generally doesn’t care why — whether it’s an unhappy childhood or an arachnoid cyst or both. To suggest that criminals could be excused because their brains made them do it seems to imply that anyone whose brain isn’t functioning properly could be absolved of responsibility. But should judges and juries really be in the business of defining the normal or properly working brain? And since all behavior is caused by our brains, wouldn’t this mean all behavior could potentially be excused?
The prosecution at first tried to argue that evidence of Weinstein’s arachnoid cyst shouldn’t be admitted in court. One of the government’s witnesses, a forensic psychologist named Daniel Martell, testified that brain-scanning technologies were new and untested, and...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
the article posted above would seem to go hand-in-glove with this one, posted only a few minutes before yours........
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1799143/posts
However, individual freedom implies individual responsibility. I could care less WHY a rapist rapes, or a murderer murders. A sad socioeconomic history, a childhood trauma, brain defect...ad nauseum.
Violating others' rights must carry the appropriate consequences.
Restitution (FULL restitution) is preferable.
Here in Texas we execute murderers. My only problem is we don't execute 'em fast enough. That's not restitution, that's protecting the rest of us from predators.
And permanent rehabilitation.
Is behavior caused by our brains or by our minds?
More to the point, what about Charles Whitman, the UofT Austin tower sniper?
"It was revealed during the autopsy that Whitman had a cancerous glioblastoma tumor in the hypothalamus region of his brain. Some theorised that it may have been pressed against the nearby amygdala, which can affect emotive passion. This has led some neurologists to speculate that his medical condition was in some way responsible for the attacks."
If criminal behavior can be explained by improved brain scans then what about political choices? We've all been intrigued by the apparent inability of liberals to make reasonable political judgements.
Maybe leftists have some kind of pre-frontal defect, rendering them unable to see the difference between Bush and Hitler . . .
LOL
A New Battery Takes Off in a Race to Electric Cars
FReepmail me if you want on or off my health and science ping list.
"The case involved Herbert Weinstein, a 65-year-old ad executive who was charged with strangling his wife, Barbara, to death and then, in an effort to make the murder look like a suicide, throwing her body out the window of their 12th-floor apartment on East 72nd Street in Manhattan."
I guess the best defense is to make sure the victim isn't around to refute one's version of events.
http://www.weirdspot.com/index.php/weblog/woman_imprisoned_for_strangling_neighbor_with_bra/
Woman Imprisoned for Strangling Neighbor with Bra
VICTORVILLE, Calif. - A woman has been sentenced in Victorville to 25 years to life in prison for strangling a neighborhood friend with her bra.
Karen Denise Chades, 40, became enraged when she discovered "Rocky" Roque, 67, had one of her brassieres. She made the discovery after an evening of drinking and dancing during a garage party on Sept. 24, 2002.
Testimony showed Chades first attacked Roque with a broom, knocking out two of his teeth, then she strangled him with the bra.
Deputy District Attorney John Thomas told jurors it was a premeditated killing. But the defense argued Chades acted in self-defense after the victim tried to sexually assault her.
Chades was convicted of murder on June 8, and was sentenced April 29.
Posted by Zodi on 05/11 at 01:00 AM
Interesting, particularly considering the research that points to a specific portion of the brain as the "morality center". (I would think it would be easy enough to confirm this by scanning certain politicians and noting which region is shrivled up like a raisin.)
Thanks for the link!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
