I still think he's going to have a hard time. I would probably not vote for him (Ralph Nader would get my vote), but he's a very welcome addition to the pseudo-democratic pot we have in the West.
Watch this space. I hope I am proved wrong.
Thursday, June 05, 2008
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
Claire Wilson
At what point are human actions the responsibility of the person acting? There are many legal precedents for people who are criminally insane, but is there a biological threshold? If there is it's certainly beyond medical science in 2008.
In 1966 Charles Witman took actions which ultimately murdered 17 people. He mercilessly bulleted them from the safety of a clock tower in Austin, Texas.
His brutality and wanton callousness included shooting an 8-month pregnant women in her abdomen, killing the child and rendering the mother infertile. He proceeded to shoot and kill the father of the child as he tried to protect his unborn baby.
As if this was not enough to take in, this obscene killer was buried with military honours! Since he had been a US marine several years earlier he was entitled (somehow) to have a flag on his coffin. The mentality that would allow this kind of honour is beyond me and even more difficult to believe since Witman was a far from ideal soldier (he was discharged after several incidents involving gambling and firearms issues and worse).
It has been widely accepted that Witman had a brain tumor during this period. This was not diagnosed during his lifetime, but probably would be today due to his depression and associated mental problems which were known to local psychiatrists at the time.
Was he responsible for his actions? In my view no. A brain tumor that eats away at the nerves that control behaviour can have only one short term outcome: maladjustment of behaviour (see Phineas Gage for a more obvious example).
At some point in the next 50 years humanity will have to confront ideas about mental capacity and action.
How accountable can someone be for their actions if they have a mental problem which was not monitored and aided by society (brain tumor)?
How accountable can someone be for their actions if they have a lower mental capacity for compassion or goodwill towards others? What we may call psychopathic (literally) behaviour is often lauded in our society, but is only a whisker away from causing tragedy.
In the next 50 years moves will be made to determine the capacity and makeup of the brain functions of society's member. This will be done in order to pre-empt tragedies.
I hope this isn't wishful thinking on my part. I don't wish ill on anyone, but I think that society has a responsibility to help those that are at risk of hurting others. Pre-emption is crucial and the only way to do that is profiling and analysis. Of course there will be hostility to this idea and in 2008 I would agree with it. Society needs to move forward both to be able to proceed with this form of analysis, but also to be prepared for the results.
Without wanting to stray too far into neuroscience it's interesting to me that both Phineas Gage's and Charles Witman's experiences are similar in that the brain's ability to reconcile right from wrong and a fundamental shift in moral outlook both occurred even though the lesion was in a quite different area (Frontal Lobe v's Hypothalamus respectively). This is not new to any modern brain researcher, but useful for the armchair or layman neuroscientist in that it indicates a non topographical location for consciousness or at least the lower forms of intelligence.
Stick that in your Phrenologist's pipe Franz Gall!!
In 1966 Charles Witman took actions which ultimately murdered 17 people. He mercilessly bulleted them from the safety of a clock tower in Austin, Texas.
His brutality and wanton callousness included shooting an 8-month pregnant women in her abdomen, killing the child and rendering the mother infertile. He proceeded to shoot and kill the father of the child as he tried to protect his unborn baby.
As if this was not enough to take in, this obscene killer was buried with military honours! Since he had been a US marine several years earlier he was entitled (somehow) to have a flag on his coffin. The mentality that would allow this kind of honour is beyond me and even more difficult to believe since Witman was a far from ideal soldier (he was discharged after several incidents involving gambling and firearms issues and worse).
It has been widely accepted that Witman had a brain tumor during this period. This was not diagnosed during his lifetime, but probably would be today due to his depression and associated mental problems which were known to local psychiatrists at the time.
Was he responsible for his actions? In my view no. A brain tumor that eats away at the nerves that control behaviour can have only one short term outcome: maladjustment of behaviour (see Phineas Gage for a more obvious example).
At some point in the next 50 years humanity will have to confront ideas about mental capacity and action.
How accountable can someone be for their actions if they have a mental problem which was not monitored and aided by society (brain tumor)?
How accountable can someone be for their actions if they have a lower mental capacity for compassion or goodwill towards others? What we may call psychopathic (literally) behaviour is often lauded in our society, but is only a whisker away from causing tragedy.
In the next 50 years moves will be made to determine the capacity and makeup of the brain functions of society's member. This will be done in order to pre-empt tragedies.
I hope this isn't wishful thinking on my part. I don't wish ill on anyone, but I think that society has a responsibility to help those that are at risk of hurting others. Pre-emption is crucial and the only way to do that is profiling and analysis. Of course there will be hostility to this idea and in 2008 I would agree with it. Society needs to move forward both to be able to proceed with this form of analysis, but also to be prepared for the results.
Without wanting to stray too far into neuroscience it's interesting to me that both Phineas Gage's and Charles Witman's experiences are similar in that the brain's ability to reconcile right from wrong and a fundamental shift in moral outlook both occurred even though the lesion was in a quite different area (Frontal Lobe v's Hypothalamus respectively). This is not new to any modern brain researcher, but useful for the armchair or layman neuroscientist in that it indicates a non topographical location for consciousness or at least the lower forms of intelligence.
Stick that in your Phrenologist's pipe Franz Gall!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)