
How should society judge a defendant with a brain tumor? (2017) - tlburke
http://nautil.us/blog/how-should-society-judge-a-defendant-with-a-brain-tumor
======
codingdave
This doesn't seem like an unanswered question to me -->
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insanity_defense](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insanity_defense)

There are certainly interesting discussions to be had around it, but this is
well-covered territory.

~~~
Enginerrrd
I wouldn't say it's been resolved though. We've only scratched the surface
here and it's barely backed by science. A lot of the case law is built on some
very outdated philosophies of mind.

There's something quite perplexing to me about the way people interpret these
things. When someone murders their mother and goes on a big murder spree and
then people try to differentiate "But were they insane?" ....Only, of course
they are! Normal people don't go on murder sprees.

~~~
s5300
Curable insanity is the question though.

Some people go insane from brain tumors and CSF leaks. These can be cured, and
can literally return a person to a "normal" state of mind overnight.

Then there are things we just can't cure yet because there's a seemingly
unfathomable amount of stuff going on in the brain with regards to chemicals.

If their cause can be medically cured with past results backing a return to
normalcy... I think that should be a large part of the legal discussion and
attempted if the defendant requests. Whether or not they lie about being
normal again after the procedures? Well, that's a question as hard as why are
some people just dicks.

------
s5300
This resonates quite deeply with me as somebody who's suffered from
cerebrospinal fluid issues. Bad idea to say more than that.

Anyways, it appears that there's a large amount of things that can go quite
wrong in the form of tumors/lesions/CSF issues around the brain that can cause
an unbelievably broad spectrum of strange to fucked up shit, and hilariously,
be cured near overnight if they're found and treated.

It's awful/funny to me because 60 years ago, talk of this would probably have
you ostracized from the medical community/seen as batshit insane. I really
hope we're able to see great strides into readily accessible and reliable (as
in, those interpreting them actually give a shit about the fine details,
though I presume this will be solved by AI) brain screenings/imaging in my
lifetime. Really, really hope so. It currently pains me there's only really
three institutes, and furthermore really only three _people_ pioneering
serious research into inappropriate recurring CSF leaks (those being Stanford,
Cedars-Sinai, and Duke - more specifically, Dr. Ian Carroll, Dr. Wouter
Schievink, and can't speak for Duke)

If I ever have the ability, I think one of my actual life goals would be to
put large amounts of money into awareness of CSF leaks and their prevalence in
those with connective tissue disorders (which also need more awareness
spread...) and funding of young scholars who really want to dig into solving
them.

[https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2017/11/02/maga...](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2017/11/02/magazine/why-
was-their-brothers-memory-and-behavior-so-strange.amp.html)

I used to have an amazing vocabulary and placed in the top 10 of a state
spelling bee when I was like 12 just from playing RuneScape. Never looked at a
dictionary or spelling bee study book in my life at that point. Post CSF
issues... my vocabulary is absolute arse, as can be seen in my poor choice of
words in the bulk of my post.

Sorry for going off topic from the actual article... but uhh, brain stuff.
Central diabetes insipidus is another absolutely _ARSE_ thing that should have
more awareness... Pituitary gland issues can be caused by so many different
things and cause so many issues, which when properly diagnosed, are typically
quite treatable.

------
travmatt
You cannot have a full conversation about the brain and criminal justice
without mentioning Robert Sapolsky, whose research has been at the forefront
of this field for decades.

[https://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/11/magazine/11Neurolaw.t.htm...](https://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/11/magazine/11Neurolaw.t.html?pagewanted=all)

------
anitil
There was a RadioLab episode touching on this [0], with a significant change
of behavior following surgery for epilepsy. Disturbing listening, so be
warned.

[0]
[https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/segments/31762...](https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/segments/317627-fault-
line)

------
jgwil2
For an interesting read that touches on this question, see _Saturday_ by Ian
McKewan[0]

[0] [https://smile.amazon.com/Saturday-Ian-
McEwan/dp/1400076196/r...](https://smile.amazon.com/Saturday-Ian-
McEwan/dp/1400076196/ref=sr_1_3)

------
BadassFractal
I remember reading that toxoplasmosis might also cause people to be engaging
in more risk-taking behaviors. How do you even factor that, or similar
behavior-altering parasites into a legal situation?

------
asdfasgasdgasdg
Free will is an illusion. Culpability and responsibility in the moral sense is
the wrong question. To put a really fine point on it, whether a person is
psychotic and violent because of brain tumor or some other neural or
biochemical defect, in neither case can they reasonably be considered the
cause of their own psychosis. Nobody "makes" themselves psychotic
intentionally, the same way you cannot cure such a condition by mere force of
will.

A better question is what gives the best results (mainly for the public at
large) as an overall system policy. I guess brain tumors are rare enough that
you can probably err on the side of mercy supposing you don't believe the
subject is likely to reoffend. But you don't want to make so many loopholes
that the deterrent effect of punishment is compromised. And of course you
don't want to let people go who are likely to harm innocent members of the
public, regardless of whether they are responsible for that condition. These
are all empirical questions though. Its incredibly hard to even establish a
deterrent effect of punishment, much less measure it to the fine degree
required to set detailed policy.

Peter Watts discusses this a little sort of as an aside during Blindsight, I
believe.

~~~
sjg007
A brain tumor is most likely a death sentence.

~~~
asdfasgasdgasdg
There are actually plenty of brain tumors that are slow growing and do not
lead to short term fatality.

------
mikece
If the tumor didn't affect the decisions that led to the defendant being a
defendant then it makes no difference at all. If found guilty then it's VERY
significant in terms of sentencing. All efforts should be taken to treat the
convict as humanely as possible in accordance with the dignity owed to every
human being.

~~~
Enginerrrd
>If the tumor didn't affect the decisions that led to the defendant being a
defendant

...But that's literally exactly the question at play in the title. When the
tumor DOES affect the decisions that make the defendant the defendant.

All I can add is that having spent a lot of time on the meditation cushion
observing the workings of my own brain, it's laughable to me that people think
they have control over their brain. And by some very objective standards most
would consider me to have quite a bit of such control. I can attest that this
control is a massive illusion.

~~~
mikece
Totally right and after thinking about it I came back to remove the first
sentence -- that facts don't care about your medical condition -- of my
comment because it contradicted the rest of what I said.

