Comments on: A Mind of Crime

By: Paul

Paul — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 16:18:21 +0000

For many criminals there is no cure, but the fact that they hide their crimes shows they recognise that behaviour is unacceptable in wider society. The decision to hide shows a capacity to choose. While the compulsion to commit crime may be strong it is still a choice. There is arguably far too much lack of responsibility and accountability already in the legal process. Why is there so much focus on the criminal? Why should the perpetrator of crime be afforded more protection than victims and the wider society? The law is intended to protect the weak but now it often trips itself up in its own convoluted good intentions.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 04 May 2010 08:58:14 +0000

There is no doubt about the enormous damage done by people suffering from mental illness.Instead of blaming and concentrating on retribution it’s time our society relises the need to cure them.Punishment is not the solution but finding a system for rehabilatation and treatment is.
Let as all look forward to an advanced society where the crimanal justice system provides for an earlier identification of such patients ,thus eradicating the crime itself.

By: christofeles

christofeles — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 22:35:06 +0000

Does knowledge of the structure and manufacture of pianos cancel the freedom of expression of improvising pianists? Does knowing of what an instrument (be it a piano or a hammer or brain) chemically consists make it less useable or effective?

Surely, once any ‘thing’ has been broken down (analyzed) into its constituents it must strike one as near miraculous that it should function at all. Such is the illusion created by analysis (the isolation of parts from a whole).

No neurophysiological ‘finding’ will ever show that choices are not made or that it is not possible to resist impulses (minimal requirements of “freedom”). If they did it would only demonstrate that the “brain” and the “mind” belong to two different universes of discourse, which is the refutation of reductionism.

No neurophysiologist in his capacity as a neurophysician (natural scientist) could ever maintain that the mind and the brain are one. Such a statement is metaphysical (or ‘speculative’ in the Hegelian sense). It is not a testable hypothesis, and must be taken on faith. Strange how so many scientists abandon their skepticism when it comes to asserting such an identity.

The distinction of universes of discourse is equivalent to the distinction between behavioral and geographical environment in Gestalt psychology. In the former we move and act and have our being, in the latter we are a collection of molecules negotiating a force-field characterized by such & such properties. Perspective is all.

By: shimon

shimon — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 14:24:48 +0000

“This scientific assertion raises profound questions: If all our mental states can ultimately be reduced to neuro-physiological brain states, and there is really no such thing as free will, how can people be held accountable for criminal behavior? What would it even mean, in neurological terms, to form an intention or act according to reason?” — These questions only seem to be profound. If minds are merely what brains compute (as they indeed are), ethics and morality become quite transparently tractable. For details, see chapter 10 of “Computing the Mind: How the Mind Really Works” (S. Edelman, Oxford University Press, 2008).

By: Cheryl

Cheryl — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 16:37:29 +0000

Just because someone has no remorse does not mean they that they are unable to recognize the difference between right and wrong. Ted Bundy hid his crimes for many years precisely because he did know his actions if discovered would lead to negative repercussions for himself.

Maybe drown them at birth. The problem is that these psychopaths do an incredible amount of damage to other people, always. That is what they do. And other people deserve to be protected from them, not allowed to be prey for a predator.

If Kent Kiehl thinks his research is going to make people feel sorry for these pyschopaths, he’s crazy. And perhaps Kent is one as well?

By: Cheryl

Cheryl — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 16:19:22 +0000

Oh please, this is just an excuse not to convict, and to allow them to continue preying on the rest of us. It should be remembered that they have no remorse — and unless science can make them grow some then they will always be predators. Of course they behave themselves when they’re being studied, that’s the very nature of a psychopath. Good behavior while being tracked doesn’t mean they suddenly grew a quantity of remorse.

Makes more sense to identify them early and have a public list, so normal people can be aware they’re interacting with a pyschopath. Perhaps sterilize them, I certainly don’t want them reproducing more. The amount of damage they do is astronomical.

By: Peter Chamberlin

Peter Chamberlin — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 13:02:47 +0000

If genetic psychopathy is often a result of brain abnormalities does that mean that they are not responsible for their own criminal behavior? If criminal behavior is mostly a product of biological and environmental causes beyond individual control, is “crime” anything more than a mental illness? SEE: Twilight of the Psychopaths, by Dr. Kevin Barrett

By: AntiPsycho

AntiPsycho — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 14:55:05 +0000

What a disturbing story. Our whole notion of justice needs to be overturned. Instead of focusing on punishment we need to focus on protecting innocent people from dangerous people like psychopaths. At the very least psychopaths need to be locked away or otherwise segregated away from the rest of decent society permanently. Then again, since psychopaths are in essence not human, lacking the features we regard as humanity (emotions, remorse, a conscience), where is the problem in putting them down like rabid dogs. Oh and a cure for psychopathy? Psychopathy is a genetic disorder. How can a genetic disorder be cured? You have as much chance of curing psychopathy as curing downs syndrome.