[Highly-recommend. Compelling. Many questions about how we as a society should change due to the advances in brain science/technology.]
"We've all felt it, that irresistible urge to point the finger. But new technologies are complicating age-old moral conundrums about accountability. This hour, we ask what blame does for us -- why do we need it, when isn't it enough, and what happens when we try to push past it with forgiveness and mercy?"
http://www.radiolab.org/story/317421-blame/
Some notes I took:
A new area of law Nita A. Farahany, PhD, JD, Director, Science & Society, Duke Institute for Genome Sciences & Policy, Professor, Law and Philosophy called: NeuroLaw. She looked into court cases where defendants argued they were not "as" responsible for their actions due to new discoveries in brain science/technology there was a reason why they did it that wasn't really them. The only data she could find were written opinions. She saw a steady increase in this data starting in 2005. In 2005-2006 there were about 100; 2007-2009 about 200; and in 2011-2012 about 300. She said a total of about 1600 from 2005-2012 [I know, the math doesn't add up.]
They also spoke to psychologist Kevin Dutton who argues damage to the brain is damage to a physical structure. They got neuroscientist David Eagleman's take and he says you are your biology. He added that "blame-worthiness" is not the question the legal system should be asking. He argues the legal system would be a lot better if we forgot about blame altogether and focused on the "probability of future recidivism."
This show goes in many directions and talks to a lot of people. It's so thought-provoking. I can't recommend it enough.
Comments (0)