Article Summary: The Brain On Trial

Therefore the defendant was capable to premeditated and intentionally followed through with killing the victim’s. The defendant was evaluated by Dr. Roland Levy the day of the shooting once he turned himself in. Dr. Levy had analyzed the defendant’s psychiatrist’s opinions and concluded the defendant had no mental

The case prosecuted under the court of Appeal of Ontario, Her Majesty the Queen v Danny Lalumiere, in 2011, was intended to appeal the conviction of counseling to commit murder. The appellant argued that the life sentence was not appropriate and was outside the range of sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offenses. This is an example of a case where legal guilt was used to provide a conviction. The conviction of the appellant was based on the testimony of a psychiatrist doctor, Dr. Pallandi, who provided a profile of the accused and concluded that the appellant was pathologically predisposed to commit an offense. The appellate court ruled against the Crown’s decision at the trial, stating that the appellant lacked moral culpability for his offenses and therefore the sentence was not deserved.

(pdf page 35). The motive for the murder doesn’t add up to

In the documentary Making a Murder, Brendan Dassey, nephew of Stephen Avery, gave a testimony that implicated himself and Avery in the murder of Teresa Halback (Demos, Ricciardi, 2015). Among one of the many issues presented within the documentary was the treatment that Dassey received. Dassey had an IQ of 70 and was taking special education classes (Demos, Ricciardi, 2015). Dassey’s IQ was lower than average but almost on the edge of intellectual disability (Dassey v Dittman, 2016, p.5). After giving the confession, he asked if he would be able to get back to class by a certain time to turn in a project (Demos, Ricciardi, 2015).

* * * I feel that it would be impossible to ensure that there were the safeguards in place to protect society from your possible actions.” (victim parent, 2002). As empathetic starts, citizens will side with the victims of the defendant’s crimes because they belief the defendant’s crimes were out of evil and cruel torture and deserves all the punishment he can get and not get a break and let back to society where he has the ability to commit potential

There is also an inclination to believe that if he had not suffered from this state, then the offence would not have been committed, specially not in the barbaric way it was done. Thus, it cannot be concluded that the accused willfully preformed the act, nor that the mens rea and the actus reus coincided while he was not in a psychotic state. (Roach, 113) Related to this finding is another element that supports the verdict of the Honorable Judge, which is the Principle of Fundamental Justice that states that no one should be “punished for morally involuntary actions.” (Roach, 82) A person who successfully raises the mental disorder defence is considered to be morally innocent of the act because they were not acting freely, in this case, free from psychotic ideations.

In Truman Capote’s “In Cold Blood” the reader is presented with a central theme throughout the course of the book. The theme is nature vs. nurture, in comparison to Dick and Perry. Dick and Perry are the two men who commit murder on the Clutter family. Both were raised in similar environments, but they each have different genetic traits that contribute to their persona. Dick is characterized as more of a “natural born killer”, while Perry on the other hand is more of a “raised” killer.

Some people might say people inherit traits from their parents, and some say they learn them based on an upbringing, but In Truman Capote’s account of the brutal murders of the clutter family in In Cold Blood, he uses the argument of Nature vs. Nurture to further explain the life behind murderer, Perry Smith. After hearing the accounts of the brutal murders, Capote goes on to explain the story behind both Perry and Dick’s lives, But Perry’s childhood stands out more. After being abandoned, beaten, and left to survive alone, Perry’s cards were stacked against him. By showing the complexity of criminals, Capote uses Perry to show the example of a non-nurturing childhood creating a person capable of murder.

In the court hearing Bryan brought up a case were Darrow was the defense attorney for two young wealthy educated young men from Chicago Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb, who murdered fourteen year-old Bobby Frank. Darrow was able to convince the jury in that case not to convict both Leopold and Loeb to the death penalty due to outside influences such as evolution and the influence of Nietzsche’s inelastic ideas that they read while in college. The case of Leopold and Loeb was seen by critics in the nation as “the moral wasteland created by families with too much money, young men with too much education and not enough simple morality grounded in religion” Parrish

In Roper v. Simmons there are two issues that must be addressed, the first being the issue of moral maturity and culpability. The defense in the trial phase of this case argued that Mr. Simmons was an at an age where he was not responsible enough to fully understand the effects and consequences of his actions. The majority draws on Atkins v. Virginia to argue that this specific precedent supports their case that the death penalty should not be imposed on the mentally immature or impaired. However, an important point to be made is that the Atkins v. Virginia decision is geared towards the clinical definition of mental retardation: significant limitations that limit adaptive skills. Also, another important question to consider is the competency and premeditation of Mr. Simmons’ crime in this case.

In analysing Steven Raphael’s article, titled How Do We Reduce Incarceration Rates While Maintaining Public Safety? , I was able to uncover some similarities and differences in related topics found in our course textbook-- Steven P. Lab and colleagues’ Criminal Justice The Essentials. Raphael, Public Policy Professor at the University of California, Berkeley, has an obvious concern for the policies enforced today that are thought to be responsible to the overcrowding of most prisons across the U.S.. Meanwhile, the textbook draws a close eye to the incarceration rates and increases overtime- all the while remaining objective and open loose interpretation. Both pieces of text add to the enlightenment of my knowledge dealing with the criminal justice system.

Nature versus nurture is one of the most controversial debates in contemporary psychology. The debate concerning whether or not humans are born with the preset characteristics that will shape lives for years to come or whether actions are a result of the events and the environment that pave the way for our behavioral characteristics. Capote’s “In Cold Blood” gives the audience a detailed look into the upbringing of the character Perry Smith, creating a sympathetic outlook towards his past and attempting to bring a sense of understanding as to how a seemingly harmless young man could brutally murder four innocent people. In the case of Perry Smith, nurture was the cause of his actions in regards to the Clutter family murders.

However, one main point struck my attention, as quoted from the article, “participants with criminal records frequently end up incarcerated, incurring probation or parole violations, or detained awaiting resolution of new charges.” Hence, with this statement it really is an eye-opening statement because it is a true

The main argument expressed in the article "Greg Ousley is Sorry for Killing His Parents. is that Enough?" is that juveniles/kids should not be sentenced to prison for long term, even if they commit severe crimes, and they have the ability to rehabilitate themselves, so they should not serve this long term sentences when they are showing improvement. An example that gives the author is the case of Greg Ousley, a teen who killed his parents at the age of 14, and that now with a age of 33 years he still serving the 60 years sentence. The author Scott Anderson interviewed Greg during a few sessions. When Anderson interviewed Greg, he saw a completely mature man with wishes to work with young people, to teach them what can go wrong by using his life as an

In “The Brain on Trial”, David Eagleman claims that the justice system needs to change its sentencing policies due to the discoveries of neurobiological diseases that cause their sufferers to behave in socially unacceptable ways and/or commit crimes. Eagleman uses a variety of rhetorical strategies to present his viewpoint. The most important one is his appeal to logic. By using mostly examples, along with direct address to the readers, Eagleman is able to argue that the legal system has to modify its sentencing policies to take into account the advances made in neuroscience due to the increase in the amount of accused and/or convicted people who have been found to have harbored some kind of brain disease or damage. Eagleman