Phineas Gage Case

Since our justice system is designed to punish those who have deliberately chosen to do something wrong, there is a defence for those who have a “disease of the mind” (Verdun-Jones, Criminal Law in Canada, 2015, p. 206) because they, technically speaking, did not choose to do so in their right mind. Such defence is the defence of “not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder” (Verdun-Jones, Criminal Law in Canada, 2015, p. 204). As stated in section 16(1) of the Criminal Code (Carswell, 2015):

If a person is born with a mental disorder does it allow them to escape getting punished for their terrifying actions? If a murder has mental issue does it make the murders he/ her caused seem less horrific? In the editorial “James Holmes trial: Jury begins deliberations in sentencing phase” by Michael Martinez it talks about how James Holmes killed 12 people and injured 70 others and his punishment. It also informs us that his attorneys believe since he has a mental disorder he doesn’t deserve the death penalty because he was born this way. I strongly disagree with the attorneys thoughts because he is saying if someone else did this crime they deserve the penalty but since he was supposable born this way the penalty shouldn’t affect him.

On the date of September 13th, 1848, one of the greatest medical miracles in history occurred. Not only was this case amazing, it was sounded too unbelievable to most and became liken into an old folk tale. However, this was no folk tale. The story of the living mad with a rod in his head was true and it stunned the entire medical community. This is the story of Phineas Gage.

Have you ever wondered about the functions of the adolescent brain and what causes teenagers and other adolescents to make many risky and absurd decisions sometimes? Did you ever think about the man Phineas Gage who became a textbook case for a severe brain accident in his prefrontal cortex, and how the accident in his brain might have altered it to the point where it would be similar to the adolescent brain?“Phineas Gage: A Gruesome but True Story About Brain Science” by John Fleischman gives examples with evidence about how Phineas’s brain and behavior was transformed after his severe injury involving the prefrontal cortex. This injury causing the prefrontal cortex damaged many important neural connections, that it sent him and his brain

Due to its primary role in processing memory and emotional reactions, over the last decade and a half psychologists have been linking the amygdala to psychopathy. It is involved in aversive conditioning and instrumental learning and is thus involved in all the processes that, when impaired, produce the same functional impairments displayed by psychopaths. Two famous studies conducted by Tiihonen and Kiehl respectively have confirmed this. Tiihonen used a volumetric MRI to test and confirm the positive correlation between low amygdaloid volume and a high degree of psychopathy in violent criminals (measured by the Hare checklist-revised) while Kiehl used a functional MRI to prove reduced amygdala response during an emotional memory task in individuals who scored high on the Hare checklist-revised. However, both these studies along with numerous others were conducted using violent offenders as subjects rather than individuals with psychopathy. Although many psychopaths do exhibit violent tendencies, not all violent offenders are necessarily psychopaths. A study conducted by Raine is one of the few that did focus only on individuals exhibiting psychopathy. In his study Raine was able to show reduced prefrontal grey matter in his test subjects. Unfortunately though, he was unable to differentiate between grey matter in different regions of the prefrontal cortex. It is however clear that there is one region of the frontal cortex that could be

A significant and controversial issue within the legal system is the ‘insanity defense’ in which during a criminal trial, the defendant will make a claim that they are not guilty by reason of insanity, or in other words, they have deficient and impaired cognitive and mental capabilities. These mental health problems associated with insanity are caused by psychopathological disorders, which may have led to their dysfunction. What separates this from a regular plead of ‘diminished capacity’ is that a plea of insanity is a full defense rather than just a partial defense (Legal information institute, n.d.). With the diminished capacity defense, the defendant’s mental competence is still the focus, although they are pleading to a lesser crime

Neurologist Antonio Damasio has written significantly on Gage and other patients that he studied on with similar injuries. Damasio viewed Gage's case as playing a crucial role in the history of neuroscience, and stated that Gage's story "was the historical beginnings of the study of the biological basis of behavior". Gage's case inspired the development of frontal lobotomy, which now is a psychosurgical procedure that leads to emotional response and personality traits. On the other hand, historical analysis doesn't support this claim because Gage's injury didn't have enough influence on the development of this practice.

As someone who feels that no one is above the law, I have some reservations about completely changing sentencing guidelines so that two people who inflict the same harm receive drastically different punishments merely based on the states of their brains. Furthermore, because an increasing number of people are being diagnosed with various mild mental illnesses (depression, bipolar disorder, etc.), this may end conventional guidelines for sentencing. Because of the availability of psychologists for examinations and the potential for human error, I’m concerned about the potential for unequal judgment and sentencing. That being said, I do believe that this modification of the legal system will be most fair to criminal that have been driven towards crime by their difficult-to-control psychology, and can actually be implemented quite easily. One of the primary determining factors of a criminal’s culpability and appropriate sentence is their mens rea, or guilty mind, a spectrum of criminal liability ranging from accidental to premeditated. At the very least, the biology of a criminal’s brain could be introduced in court to mitigate the mens rea and therefore assign a more lenient and appropriate sentence. This gradual introduction could serve as an experimental gateway for the criminal justice system to begin implementing neuroscience as a foundation for sentencing and

The United States formed the principle of “Innocent until proven guilty”. Sometimes the perpetrator knows that they’re guilty, but they’re found not guilty. Kenneth Parks, a twenty-three-year-old man who “… Broke in, stabbed his mother… drove himself to the police station… said ‘I think I may have killed some people’” (Quoted in Eagleman 437). Parks was a man who committed murder and was found not guilty. Various parties knew that Parks committed the murder, but motive was the reason he was found not guilty. Controversy around Parks’ adjudication just added to existing debates about psychological crimes. Who did the crime, the culprit or his/her biological factors? Should the culprit get rehabilitation

However, more recently, a study led by King’s College London has claimed that there are differences between the brains of psychopaths and other criminal offenders diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder. Dr. Nigel Blackwood who led the research is quoted as saying “We describe those without psychopathy as 'hot-headed' and those with psychopathy as ‘cold-hearted’.” This statement shows a clear distinction between what should be interpreted as a lack of self-control and ability to repress impulses and what should be diagnosed as psychopathy.
The study took MRI scans of 66 men, two thirds of which were offenders who had been diagnosed with antisocial personality whilst the other third were non-offenders considered to not have any personality disorders. Of the 44 offenders, 17 met the diagnosis criteria for psychopathy (ASPD+P) assessed by the guidelines stated in the DSM-IV. Researchers saw that the members of the study diagnosed as psychopaths had notably less grey matter in areas associated with moral behaviour and understanding other peoples’

The insanity defense has become popularized by criminal television shows, but it is not used as portrayed. According to Dr. Zachary Torry, a psychiatrist, the defense is actually used in one percent of cases and not even one-fourth of those cases will succeed in front of a jury (Torry). Furthermore, the legal definition of insanity is very different than the societal definition. As stated by George Blau, a criminal defense lawyer, “insane” does not describe someone who is psychotic or crazy, but it instead describes someone who does not know the difference between right or wrong. They are found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) because one of the three traits of a crime is not evident. The three traits are a guilty mind (mens rea), a prohibited act, and a pre-established sentence (Blau). For the insane, there is no mens rea because someone cannot feel guilty for an act that they do not know is wrong. Therefore, those found NGRI have a different punishment than those convicted of a crime. Their sentence is often time at a mental institution where treatment is available, but the sentences can be irregular and unchecked by government associations. Therefore, the insanity defense may need to be amended, by requiring monitoring of the cases and adopting the mens rea approach or to be completely abolished because of its potential improper use and a lack of proof.

It is very rare these days to turn on the news and not hear about a crime or a murder. Crime is a common occurrence yet many times it is difficult to understand how someone could bring themselves to do these things. It does seem to make any sense why a young handsome man from a good family would want to kill someone and then be able to go through with it. This leads one to wonder if the brains of people who behave in socially unacceptable ways are different from everyone else's brains. There is a substantial amount of evidence that suggests some criminals do have differences in their brains that most likely contribute to their behavior. Many of these individuals have Antisocial Personality Disorder and

Genetic influences on behavior can affect the criminal justice system. If a person is convicted of a crime with a mental disorder they have diminished responsibility for the crime and may not be held accountable because of their behavior and since this is the case should then genes affecting your behavior be treated the same way(“Genetics and Human Behaviour: The Ethical Context”).

The biology and environment play a huge role in these offender’s lives. The interaction between neurological and having a disadvantaged environment can put them at a higher risk of becoming an offender. These offenders can be seen as psychopaths because of the factors that are a play. Throughout their childhood they begin to have antisocial conduct. Then during adolescence they begin to have cumulative consequences and in adulthood they start to commit criminal behavior.

Mental Illness has been prevalent all throughout our history from Isaac Newton to Abraham Lincoln to Sylvia Plath and so on. These illnesses can be as minor as a slight bipolar disorder or as severe as schizophrenia. In recent years, mental illnesses are becoming more prevalent in our criminal justice systems than anywhere else. Mental illness is becoming an association with crime and based on the information that has been found, this paper will attempt to further define the problem of mental illness within our criminal justice system and offer alternatives or insights as to how to possibly help with this problem.