http://news.yahoo.com/insight-neuroscie ... 22193.html

Conflicted morals, as a scientist who doesn't like insanity pleas.

There is no science to morality. It's a philosophical discussion with no absolutes. I don't really care why someone did something unless it's some sort of self defense, you do the crime you do the time. If you are whacko you do your time in a bouncy room.

Incarciration, whether in prison or psych ward, is about removing potential threats from free society right? Insanity please should NOT absolve someone from this removal, unless science can improve to a point in which such defects can be cleared up beyond doubt of recurrence. But then, if we're at a stage like that, I would think preventative measures would have improved greatly to a point that such crimes may be avoidable altogether?

There is only so much preventative measures society can take before we begin encountering diminishing returns in both expense and undermining personal liberty. We don't want to get to the point of minority report where we are proactively responding to arguably potential threats. People should take a greater responsibility for their personal safety and make smart decisions. There is being paranoid, yes, but there is also being aware and prepared. I am advocating for the latter.

OH I agree. I dont mean punitive preventative measures. At some point this magnetic resonance testing is going to be about as affordable as cell phone minutes, and when it is, it should be as integral a part of preventative healthcare as mammograms. And when medical science is keen enough to perceive someone's tendency toward sociopath or psychotic behavior, and we have measures to correct brain patterns and abate these behaviors, thats a win for everyone. Its not punitive or a breach of liberty in my opinion to do so.

EDIT - And I'll add, anyone should be free to refuse such testing or treatment if they wish, but with the caveat that if they do so, and at some point engage in some psychotic behavior, the punitive measure will be stiff and swift.

I almost feel like this could be a precursor to that minority report.

Well we can't control what future policy would be, but as long as its a clear distinction that no punitive measures are taken solely on a predisposition to psychosis, then we should be fine. You can only punish action taken, thats why Im so opposed to hate crime law, its seeks to prosecute thought patterns.

I think many of the stoplight victories I have could have fit the definition of a hate crime.

While you don't "require" testing, you sort of de facto require it on the back end with the two-tiered schedule of punishment. If family or friends who know a person act to get a loved one checked out based upon behavior, fine, but I am 100% against government scanning peoples' brains as some determining factor of anything.

No no no, let me be clear, I am NOT advocating that the government be the one holding these reigns. My point was that such scans should be part of your preventative care package, once affrodable enough, and treatments available for any psychosis predisposition would be between you and your doctor. The government would NOT be involved on the front end. Again anyone would be free to either avail themselves or refuse the scanning/treatment based on their preference. The government only becomes involved on the backend, when the actual crime is committed. The only link is accessing reports during the prosecution process as to whether you participated in scanning/treatment. If such technology exists that any psychosis could have been abated on the front end, and you rejected it, that makes the insanity plea completely irrelevant. There will be no more pleas of insanity. If you did it, you are convicted, end of story.

You are forcing people to submit to a brain scan against their will under threat of enhanced prosecution if they do not comply. This is unacceptable.

No, Im just upping the failure side of the risk they take by not having the scans.

Which is essentially the same thing. You are artificially influencing behavior, by hook you say, by crook I say. The threat of increased punishment for failure to "volunteer" for these is a roundabout way to avoid the appearance of force. It should not be. If you are sane and do the crime, you should be punished. If you are s*** crazy and do the crime, you should be punished.

Hmmm mandatory volunteering.

Should we be able to pull people out of society if we see that they will be a future threat even if they have had no prior history....

No, we should not remove from society based on a predisposition only. In fact the equation only works when a recognizable treatment is available, otherwise, what is the incentive to participate. People will just take their chances with fate.

I do understand your concerns TMS. Are you advocating for strictest discipline regardless of sanity status?

In a sense yes. I understand the plight and certain amount of detachment people with mental issues have from crimes they commit, but my emphasis is society. I am a strong proponent of civil liberty, but I temper that with a similarly powerful belief in personal responsibility.

If someone is s*** ing in the well they need to be dealt with for the good of the tribe. I don't want it to be a vengeance mentality, one of the many reasons I oppose the death penalty, just the satisfaction of an identified need to remove this person from the group for a specified period of time.

If someone kills someone we need to then determine why. If it was an accident, obviously that is not the same as a premeditated act. If someone is bat s*** crazy, however, while there is an absence of malice in the act, we are presented with a person who is a demonstrated danger to society. They must be removed, just like the "normal" person who killed. The only difference is one goes through the standard penal system and the other through a more appropriate one where their mental health can be addressed.

That is pretty much what we have now and on its face seems like a good idea. I think the problem is, no rehabilitation is really accomplished. Bad men become badder and crazy men become crazier. Scanning people's brains isn't going to change that and only provides one more encroachment into liberty that WILL be abused by authority for no benefit.

Now, I am glad the technology is evolving and would encourage people who worry to get scanned, but because they want it, not to avoid potentially greater prosecution because they didn't "volunteer" for one before flipping out at the Starbucks and jamming that steamer nozzle in the barista's ear and boiling his brain for demanding you call it a "venti."

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xi9BRgjvOlk[/youtube]

In the old times, when no cure was at hand, several criminals were killed by the law of the land in order to avoid more crimes from these individuals. Lots of people who suffered of different mental diseases were sent to death because there was not a study to corroborate that the individual had some mental problems.

Today, we are very close not to cure the mental disease but to identify it properly.

The article mentions pedophilia, but such brain scan will work great for incest, homosexuality, shoplifting, etc.

I don't think that will be a cure, but such behaviors will finally be identified scientifically as mental diseases...my hope.

carloslebaron wrote:In the old times, when no cure was at hand, several criminals were killed by the law of the land in order to avoid more crimes from these individuals. Lots of people who suffered of different mental diseases were sent to death because there was not a study to corroborate that the individual had some mental problems.

Today, we are very close not to cure the mental disease but to identify it properly.

The article mentions pedophilia, but such brain scan will work great for incest, shoplifting, etc.

I don't think that will be a cure, but such behaviors will finally be identified scientifically as mental diseases...my hope.

Fixed.

carloslebaron wrote:In the old times, when no cure was at hand, several criminals were killed by the law of the land in order to avoid more crimes from these individuals. Lots of people who suffered of different mental diseases were sent to death because there was not a study to corroborate that the individual had some mental problems.

Today, we are very close not to cure the mental disease but to identify it properly.

The article mentions pedophilia, but such brain scan will work great for incest, homosexuality, shoplifting, etc.

I don't think that will be a cure, but such behaviors will finally be identified scientifically as mental diseases...my hope.

Suspicious drug use + weird grasp of the English language = HUH?!

bigbadberry3 wrote:

carloslebaron wrote:In the old times, when no cure was at hand, several criminals were killed by the law of the land in order to avoid more crimes from these individuals. Lots of people who suffered of different mental diseases were sent to death because there was not a study to corroborate that the individual had some mental problems.

Today, we are very close not to cure the mental disease but to identify it properly.

The article mentions pedophilia, but such brain scan will work great for incest, shoplifting, etc.

I don't think that will be a cure, but such behaviors will finally be identified scientifically as mental diseases...my hope.

Fixed.

Is it fair to take one of those out and not the others? Could they too be genetically linked predispositions?

That's what the link talks about. However, I fixed this as the remaining topics are crimes and have negative connotations about them.