Joe is innocently walking down the street minding his own business when a gas main in the basement of a nearby apartment complex explodes. Joe gets a cut on his head. Joe believes his injuries are minor and doesn't realize that he has a small piece of shrapnel lodged in his brain. At first, Joe has only mild physical symptoms and he does not connect them to the head injury.
Over the next year Joe's symptoms worsen. He experiences sudden mood swings, dizziness, nausea, insomnia, paranoia, and hallucinations. Joe sees a doctor but the doctor fails to diagnose the problem, which is a piece of shrapnel lodged in Joe's brain.
Joe begins to see the world differently. Eventually he flies into an unprovoked rage and beats his wife Jane, whom he loves and to whom he has been married for years, to death.
In the process of struggling with his wife Joe sustains another head injury. Joe is arrested and taken to a hospital where x-rays reveal the shrapnel embedded in Joe's skull. This type of injury is known to cause the symptoms that Joe experienced. Joe’s doctors believe that the shrapnel may be life-threatening. The shrapnel is removed and Joe recovers from his brain injuries. His symptoms subside, and his personality returns to "normal" (at least, as normal as could be expected given recent traumatic events).
Joe and his wife were happy before Joe's initial head injury, and investigators can uncover no other motive for the murder, because in fact no motive exists. Based on the evidence and the testimony of Joe’s doctors, Joe is acquitted of all charges. Joe goes on to have a long life and never hurts another human being. He is active, productive at work, and has a lot of close friends. He mourns the loss of his wife always.
Are you, the reader of the story, justified in hating Joe? Is anyone justified in hating Joe? Is Joe really responsible for the death of his wife Jane? If so, why? If not, then what killed Jane – a piece of shrapnel? An exploding gas main?
Where is “free will” in all of this? Could Joe have done otherwise than what he did? Should he have gone to see more doctors before he killed Jane? Should Jane have insisted on it?
What about personal identity? Who is the “real” Joe – Shrapnel Joe, who killed his wife, or Normal Joe, who regretted the loss of his wife?
If Shrapnel Joe had a full understanding of his situation, and refused the personality-altering surgery, would the doctors have been morally justified in compelling him to undergo the procedure? Why or why not?
In Joe’s case, the cause of his errant behavior was identifiable. Certainly, not all murder cases are like Joe’s. But what if they were? What if all murders could be understood as well, and all people could be treated as easily as Joe was treated?
Suppose human behavior was so well-understood that you could walk into a clinic, have a few simple tests and a harmless brain scan, and therapists could analyze the information and share with you profound insights into your life and personality. They could help you stay mentally alert and emotionally balanced. If there was a dangerous personality disorder, they could offer prescriptions and referrals to specialists who could help.
Your personality could be adjusted through the use of counseling, exercise, diet, sensory stimuli (such as viewing images), drugs, and surgery. In criminal cases, people might even be legally obligated to undergo such personality adjustments. Would you still be "you" after undergoing many of these adjustments?
Is the above scenario really possible? Why or why not?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Since making up the story above, I realized I had better do a little research about head injuries. A few minutes on the internet uncovered loads of evidence linking brain injuries to violent behavior. Here is a good example: http://www.fi.edu/brain/head.htm#head_injuries_violence
I think the story about Joe is plausible enough to make the point, even if it misses on some of the details.
I agree that Joe's story is within the bounds of possibility. The most infamous story of this type concerned one Phineas Gage. In September 1849, an industrial accident fired a tamping iron right through Gage's head, but miraculously he survived:
The tamping iron was 3 feet 7 inches long and weighed 13 1/2 pounds. It was 1 1/4 inches in diameter at one end and tapered to a diameter of 1/4 inch at the other. The tamping iron went in point first under his left cheek bone and completely out through the top of his head, landing about 25 to 30 yards behind him.
The front part of the left side of his brain was destroyed, and poor Phineas was a changed man:
Before the accident he had been their most capable and efficient foreman, one with a well-balanced mind, and who was looked on as a shrewd business man. He was now fitful, irreverent, and grossly profane, showing little deference for his fellows. He was also impatient and obstinate, yet capricious and vacillating, unable to settle on any of the plans he devised for future action. His friends said he was "No longer Gage".
Not so far removed from Joe's story.
I assume this post is intended to further our discussion of Dawkins' provocative position. I think Joe's story can be distinguished from the Dawkins' scenario, at least in terms of legal taxonomy.
Legally, a person is guilty of a crime if he possesses both the guilty act (actus reus) and the guilty mind (mens rea). The first means that he has committed the criminal act; the second means that he acted with criminal intent.
"Joe" committed the criminal act, but he would be found not guilty because he lacked the second criterion, criminal intent.
But the kind of people Dawkins has in mind meet both of the legal criteria. Maybe they adopted a criminal lifestyle because of biological or environmental determinants, but as the law now stands they would be convicted of their crimes.
That, of course, is what Dawkins wants to change. (Or at least shorten the length of the sentences.)
Your latter question, Who is the "real" Joe is one I have wondered about.
Arglor, you've said that you find the idea of repairing people repugnant: but we do it all the time. I used to work with people with psychiatric disorders, and there was one guy that I will remember for the rest of my life. His psychiatrist changed his medication regimen almost every week. The intent was to improve his quality of life, but to that end she was constantly messing with the delicate balance of his brain chemistry, tweaking his personality.
Who was the real "Kevin", I wondered at the time? — the guy who was in constant distress of one sort or another, or the other, relatively content, "tweaked" version?
If it were you, which personality would you choose to have? — which would you lay claim to as the "real" you? It's impossible to judge from the outside, of course.
The only part i disagree with is the court's reaction.
I think he would have still been found guilty, just of Manslaughter instead of murder. Manslaughter takes into account a lack of foresight and intent.
So effectively it wouldn't be acquited on the grounds that he did the action without pre-cognizance. If you enter a plea of insanity even, you are not "Free" to go about your merry way.
He would have served at most 5 years to assist with the victim's family.
now looky there i bypassed the real question didn't i? and i'm going to continue to bypass it till i've given it more thought.
I just rebel against the notion of human engeneering, it has to do with the existentialist in me.
This is my one religious tinge. I believe in human individuality above all other things, for the fear of what not believing in it will lead to.
Perhaps identity is nothing more then a "nobel lie" perpetrated to allow for emotional ups and downs like pride and failure, but i believe there is something fundamental to the human experience that goes beyond simply a combination of parts. I won't call it the soul of course, but i will call it consciousness.
I also see a lot of progress being made on the belief that humans are individuals. I see our treatement of similar species and even ourselves improving. I see foundations being created for future civilizations.
Q, thanks for the Phineas Gage information; it was fascinating. ("Fascinating" ... do I sound like Mr. Spock yet? Imagine me with one eyebrow raised imperiously.)
Thank you for the legal background as well. I'm not sure Dawkins was saying that we shouldn't put people in jail. (Here's a link to Dawkin's statement for anyone who might have missed it in the comments in the previous post.)
Moral principles are distinct from laws, themselves. Dawkins is clearly challenging the moral principles on which our laws are presumably based. He challenges some of the moral justifications we use to keep people in prison - namely retribution, and the concepts of blame and moral responsibility. But he doesn't rule out other kinds of moral justification, like deterrence and rehabilitation, or
pragmatic justifications, such as the containment of a public threat. So, he doesn't seem (to me, at any rate) to be making a general statement that it's wrong to put people in prison.
I could be wrong of course. Dawkins may believe that we are morally obligated to release violent offenders into the streets today, but I doubt he is that foolish. More likely, he thinks we shouldn't have prisons eventually, once we have the means to reform or rehabilitate said offenders by other means.
If it were you, which personality would you choose to have? — which would you lay claim to as the "real" you?
This question, and similar ones raised by Arglor's previous comment, trouble me greatly. What are the moral implications of a science that completely understands, and can manipulate, the will? If other people can control the choices we make, what does that tell us about our personal identities?
Is such a science even possible? It seems like it is, since an exact correlation exists between what we think and the physical processes taking place in our brains.
Arglor,
I think you and I are on the same wavelength. I underplayed it in my post, but I too am scared by the idea that someone could literally control the thoughts of another.
In the right hands (I can't imagine whose), this technology could lead to Utopia. In the wrong hands (much more likely), it could be a horrendous moral evil.
I messed up in my previous comment. Here's the Dawkins link again: http://www.edge.org/q2006/q06_9.html#dawkins
What am I saying??? "In the right hands, it could lead to Utopia"????
The words that come out of my mouth sometimes! I don't want anyone messing with my head! I want to make my own choices about who I ought to be!
Wow, I can't believe I actually thought that for a little while ...
"Utopia" is too strong a word, obviously. And frankly, my sympathies lie with you and Arglor.
But let me continue to play devil's advocate. I'll tell another story, from a documentary I saw on TV a couple of years ago.
It was about a teenager who was a gifted composer on the piano. He was in a school for artistically gifted people. But he was also profoundly depressed: to the point where he spent the better part of the day actually weeping.
They put him on some medication or other, and they ameliorated the depression. But — you guessed it — whenever he followed the medication regimen he stopped composing music.
I'm relatively comfortable with "tweaking" a person's personality by means of medication. It's less intrusive, somehow, even though I still think it's apt to describe it as I did above, "messing with the delicate balance of his brain chemistry."
I really get the heebie-jeebies when I think about genetic engineering. That takes "intrusive" to a whole other level. The geneticists think it's a wonderful idea, they believe it can be done, and they're actively working on it.
So there's no evading the question I raised in my previous comment. If it were me, I think I'd choose to be the kid on medication, not depressed, but no longer composing music, either.
But that means it's OK to manipulate people's personalities, at least in some instances. So how do we draw the line? Are some mechanisms (medication) acceptable while other mechanisms (genetic engineering) not acceptable? Or should we say that it's OK to modify a personality 50% (if there's any way to measure such a thing) but not 80%?
Also, Arglor, I don't think your reading of the law is correct. Joe wouldn't be confined to a mental institution, because his condition was corrected via surgery.
Nor would Joe be convicted of manslaughter. The distinction between murder and manslaughter is premeditation. Manslaughter, like murder, requires the "guilty mind": it's just that you've acted in a flash of passion rather than plotting it all out beforehand in "cold blood". So I think Joe would be acquitted and set free to resume a normal life.
Oops, I have to eat my words. This morning I remembered that the "documentary" was actually a fictional TV show. So you may want to discount my argument accordingly.
On the other hand, the scenario struck me as plausible after my experience in the group home. Maybe the connection between suffering and artistic genius is contrived. But the principle, that something is lost as well as gained when you take medication to treat a mental health condition — I think the principle is accurate.
Not correct Q.
Involuntary Manslaughter resulting from the failure to perform a legal duty expressly required to safeguard human life, from the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to a felony, or from the commission of a lawful act involving a risk of injury or death that is done in an unlawful, reckless, or grossly negligent manner —see also reckless homicide
let me tell a story now.
Johnny gets into a car. On his drive home he hits Jenny. In the end Jenny was walking across the street when she had the signal light. Johnny did not see the red light and ended up running the red light. Jenny Dies. Johnny didn't intend, nor did he even not intend to kill jenny. The only thing Johnny did was run a red light. Johnny would still go to jail for Vehicular Manslaughter. Why? Because Johnny did not see and stop for the red light.
In the same aspect, even though Joe did not understand how serious his condition was, or even how dangerous it would be to his wife he neglected to go to a hospital and have the tests run on what he assumed was just a "flesh wound".
My point is the courts would find him negligent for not taking the appropriate steps before-hand to ensure his health and the health of those around him.
I doubt in a real life situation someone could take shrapnel into the head and remain safe and secure enough to not go to the hospital. Especially when the shrapnel is effecting his method of thinking. But that is aside the point, the sitation could potentially occur.
Arglor:
I think we're getting away from the concept Snaars wanted us to explore.
I should also say that I took precisely one criminal law course in university, so I'm hardly an expert.
With those provisos, I would invite you to google "mens rea" and read up on it. According to every blogger's best friend, Wikipedia, mens rea can be categorized in three different classes. I think your example would be categorized as either recklessness or criminal negligence.
Johnny is culpable because it is foreseeable that you might kill someone if you speed through a red light. Joe's situation is different. Just because you get a head injury, doesn't mean it's reasonable to foresee that you might murder someone months later.
For a better parallel, have a look at the Wikipedia article on drunkenness as a defense in a criminal trial:
In theory, defendants argue that they should not be held criminally liable for actions which broke the law, because their intellectual capacity had been reduced by the amount of alcohol or drugs they had consumed and so they could not form the mens rea required to constitute the offense.
The article points out that the defense might succeed, particularly in cases where you were drunk involuntarily. For example, if you were at a party where, unbeknownst to you, someone had spiked the punch you were drinking.
A similar example is that you're taking a prescribed medication and you don't realize that it has impaired your mental functioning. If Johnny was in that situation, and then he ran a red light and killed someone, he might be found not guilty.
An injury to the head is always a serious matter as it could lead to all sorts of complications, what feels like a normal headache could be something else. If you or someone you know suffers a head injury they should be checked by a professional as soon as possible. If it a industrial accident then inform your boss of the incident and ask if you can leave for treatment.
The preceding comment seems like spam but is actually good advice, so as the lord of this website I will stay my god-like powers and opt for the continued existence of the helpful little comment as opposed to obliteration.
Post a Comment