Difference between revisions of "NOV 14"

From Alfino
Jump to navigationJump to search
(Created page with "==23: NOV 14: Unit Five: Empathy== ===Assigned=== :*Robert Sapolsky, from ''Behave'', Chapter 14, "Feeling Someone's Pain, Understanding Someone's Pain, Alleviating Someone'...")
 
m
 
Line 1: Line 1:
−
==23: NOV 14: Unit Five: Empathy==
+
==24: NOV 14. Unit Six: Moral Responsibility and Criminal Justice==
  
 
===Assigned===
 
===Assigned===
  
−
:*Robert Sapolsky, from ''Behave'', Chapter 14, "Feeling Someone's Pain, Understanding Someone's Pain, Alleviating Someone's Pain." 521-535.
+
:*[https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/episodes/317421-blame Radio Lab Episode on Blame and Moral Responsibility]
−
:*Hidden Brain, "[https://www.npr.org/2020/08/31/907943965/you-2-0-empathy-gym You 2.0: Empathy gym]" If you don't have time for the whole thing, get through the first two segments.  Up to 21 minuates.
+
:*[https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13554790903329182?scroll=top&needAccess=true&journalCode=nncs20 Article abstract, "Klüver–Bucy syndrome, hypersexuality, and the law"]
  
−
===In-Class===
+
===In-class===
  
−
:*Mention "Imagining the Just Society" wiki notes for previous class (and the handout). 
+
:*Some basics of the moral responsibilty and free will discussion
−
:*Briefly on our continuum of justice theories for PP1. 
 
  
−
===More on Continuum of Justice theories===
+
===Introduction to philosophical problems with Moral Responsibility and the Law===
  
−
:*Our "continuum of justice theories" includes formal justice, Rawls, Capabilities, and Strong Well-being theories. Last class, we worked through these theories and some pluses and minuses of them that might figure into your assessment in PP1.  Today, consider the theories in terms of the different questions they ask about "what we owe each other":
+
:*'''Basic Questions:''' 
 +
::*1. Do we praise people for things that they don't deserve credit for and blame people for things that are not their fault?   
 +
::*2. Is our concept of moral responsibility (and all of the behaviors and institutions based on it) wrong somehow? Is it out of sync with ideas about free will, what we know about the brain, and the causes of crime?
 +
::*3. What exactly do we mean when we say, "You are responsible for that"?  Start a list.  Causal, moral, both, neither.  Do you find yourself referencing some idea of a "normally competent person"? When would you also hold someone responsible for becoming a normally competent person? What sorts of conditions make is more or less likely that you will become a normally competent person?
 +
::*4. If we clarify our understanding of moral responsibility, will we still approach criminal punishment with retributive intent?
  
−
:*1. '''Formal Theories''': "How do we guarantee equal treatment and fair rules for everyone?" (Justice is satisfied once we do this.)  (Note: Formal Justice is included in each of the other theories, but can be argued as sufficient.  Indeed, that is the traditional view.)
+
:*'''Some concepts for thinking about moral responsibility:'''
  
−
:*2. '''Rawls'''' Difference Principle: "How am I better off (either by income or public goods) for tolerating the effects of a competitive society (inequality)?  (If I can't satisfy the difference principle, then I made an irrational choice from being the veil of ignorance. On the other hand, I only need to be a little better off for it to be rational.)
+
::*'''Moral Responsibility''' - The idea that people can be held responsible, in some fashion, for their actions. Two main kinds of moral responsibility are "'''desert-based''' or "moral desert" moral responsibility" (db-MR) and "'''accountability''' moral responsibility" (accountability).
  
−
:*3. '''Capabilities''': "How does my society help me achieve basic capabilities that promote my freedom to achieve my well-being?  (Just societies focus on the "instrumental freedoms" that enable capabilities.)
+
::*'''Moral desert Responsibility (db-MR)''' -
 +
:::*Def: You "morally deserve" something because you did (or failed to do) something '''that you knew you were expected to do or not do'''.  It follows that you are'''blameworthy and deserving of punishment.''' Typically, '''retributive punishment''' - pain (from fines or incarceration) proportional to offense. (You can also talk about "deserving" something good...)
 +
:::*You might deserve blame for failing any of a wide range of expectations. Expectations can come from friends and family, from social norms, or from the law. Examples: Your partner expects you to call if you are late for dinner (they should accept responsibility), you deserve to be treated civilly by others, you worked a shift and deserve to be paid. You failed to observe the speed limit and you deserve a ticket.
 +
:::*Difficulties arise when we consider "excuses" and "limiting conditions".  You're late for dinner because you helped save someone's life or because your alcoholism led you to a bar. You have Kluwer-Bucy syndrome.
  
−
:*4. '''Strong Well-Being approaches''' like utilitarian and happiness economists: "How much does the society promote the well-being of its citizens?" (The just society is centrally focused on SWB.  Happiness is a better measure than GDP alone.)
+
::*'''Accountability Moral Responsibility''' -
 +
:::*If we just want to understand why someone failed in their responsibility and, importantly, whether they will do it again, we might ask them to give an "account" of their behavior and thinking ("What were you thinking!?") Giving an account of someone as having done or failed to do things we normally expect of others can be done quite apart from holding someone blameworthy (as in in desert-based MR). This might be an important distinction if you become a skeptic about moral responsibility as a result of this unit. Accountability MR is typically focused on understanding potential threats to society from an offender and, where possible rehabilitating offenders.  Accountability MR may include accepting restrictions on one's liberty, from incarceration to probationary restrictions.
  
−
===Hidden Brain, Empathy===
+
::*'''Main Point'''You can still have accountability MR without db-MR.  Is accountability enough? Why/why not?
 +
 +
::*Moral desert can be contrasted to what you deserve just because of your status, as in rights. This is also called "'''moral standing'''". 
 +
::*Moral desert can also be contrasted with "morally arbitrary" (recall Rawls). So, we would say you do not deserve praise or blame for things that are "'''morally arbitrary'''":  things you did little or nothing to achieve (like an inheritance), things about you that were just your good fortune (good impulse control, a good noodle, athletic ability, at ease in social life...) or deficits and challenges that you have that you did nothing to deserve (having epilepsy, a substance abuse problem, anger issues, etc.). Some philosophers will say that you don't deserve to be blamed for things that are morally arbitrary.  That would be a reason to prefer “accountability responsibility”.
  
−
:*Segment 1: Artist's performance art installation. Wafa.  Internet connected paint ball gun. Iraqi artist, lost his brother in air strike. Thinking about drone warfare, thinking about consequences of actions... ends at 5:22.
+
::*'''Free will and responsibility''' -- Most people would agree that if we cannot freely will our actions, we cannot be held responsible for them.  But what sort of free will is required? Is normal choosing (neurologically described) free will or do we have to break with the causal fabric of the universe! (Libertarian Free will).  If the world is deterministic, everything has been "decided" (Including basketball games!).  Does that mean there is no free will, or just that it might not be what we think it is?
−
:*Jamil Zaki, [https://www.amazon.com/s?k=the+war+for+kindness&i=stripbooks&crid=7SSD8EFJP5XF&sprefix=The+war+for+%2Cstripbooks%2C115&ref=nb_sb_ss_c_2_12_ts-doa-p The War for Kindness].  Early 70s program for faculty, mom from Peru to WSU, married/divorced while Jamil was young, felt difference in parents' rules/values.  Credits that to empathy.  Parent's divorce was an "empathy gym".   
 
−
:*Benefits of empathy -- benefits both parties.  empathic doctor-patient relationships, empathic partners.  Giving empathy less depression, less stress, adolescents with emotional skill better adjusted in middle school. 
 
−
:*clip from Sesame street -- phone call from friend.  Three components:
 
−
::*1. emotional empathy - feeling emotions of others, or a version of those emotions.
 
−
::*2. cognitive empathy - trying to understand what others are feelings and why or what they are going through.
 
−
::*3. empathy concern and compassion.  concern for what they are going through and desire for their well-being
 
  
−
::*autism spectrum disorders.  often still have 1 but not 2
+
===Radio Lab Episode on Blame and Moral Responsibility===
−
::*psychopathy often have 2 but not 1
 
  
−
:*Segment 2: Cultural instantiation of empathy.  Sarah Conrath - survey research using validated instrument.  Trend toward less empathy.  Examples of survey items at 14:45.  A lot since 2000. 
+
:*'''Segment 1:''' Story of Kevin and his wife, Janet.  Kevin is arrested for child pornography.   
−
::*Other variables: Living alone.  10x compared to 1950.  Hard to know about link there.  pretty speculative. We are more urban, solitary, and transactional (less communal experience, more consumption experience).  These interactions don't favor empathy. Internet? Might be a source of empathy, early idealism of internet.  But we might be using the Internet in "empathy negative" ways -- no faces (!), avatars, text -- not great triggers for empathy.  Research on dehumanizing opinions from text vs. voice.  (Tapping into a long line of theory about urban life and dehumanization.) segment ends at 21:30
 
  
−
'''
+
::*15 years earlier. Epilepsy seizures returned after surgery two years earlier. Can't drive so he meets Janet from work, who drives him to work. Romance... Still more seizures.  Another surgery. Music ability in tact.  But then his food and sexual appetites grew, played songs on the piano for hours.  Disturbing behavior.  Really disturbing behavior.
−
:*Segment 3: Costs and benefits of Empathy
 
−
::*Trauma and empathy.  Could go in different directions. '''Hurt people hurt people.'''  But also "altruism born of suffering".  Addicts become addiction counselors...etc.  Research showing that showing American harsh video from 9/11 attacks increases willingness to torture. Other research: more wary of outsiders.
 
−
::*But 9/11 was also unifying, eliciting empathy. (Change in stereotype of “New Yorker”)   
 
−
::*Paul Bloom, Against Empathy - empathy tends to be tribal, Zaki doesn’t disagree, adds that -- oxcitociin studies do turn up parochialism along with empathy. Zaki draws different conclusion. Bloom thinks we should give up on empathy.  Believes that empathy is trainable. Could go in different directions.
 
−
::*Sometimes we need to be less empathetic.  Research on police officers showing strong empathy, even to officers in trouble.  (Interesting insight on “police empathy” (good guys who made a mistake). In-group empathy (parochial empathy) might interfere with perception. High in-group empaths, even if empathic to outsiders, are not likely to allow threat to tribe.  29:23: Advice:  If we want to open up to others (out groups - the people we discriminate against), we need to notice this.  What if we are over empathic to our group?
 
−
::*Professionals who need to use empathy (caring professions) might suffer from its expression. '''Defensive dehumanization (self-protection)''' 31:21 -- blocking empathy for self-preservation. Example of therapist who doesn’t schedule depressed patient at the end of the day.
 
−
::*Mark Panser study (31:40) Researchers set up table in busy student union soliciting donations, happy child/ suffering child.  unmanned/wheelchair.  You’d think the sad child and wheelchair attendant would be a winner. But it backfired!  Other examples: Crossing the street to avoid a homeless person.  Maybe we (especially high empaths) avoid triggering our own empathetic response.
 
−
::*Empathy and Dehumanization: Study on whites reading about native Americans.  Led to negative judgement of Native Americans to dismiss guilt (cog. dissonance).  In “obedience to authority” studies, subject who shock confederates report liking victim less, death row officers tend to dehumanize inmates, more likely to lead avoidance or dehumanizing judgements.  ends at 36:00
 
  
−
:*Segment 4: Back to art installation; how to “pump” empathy.
+
::*Reporter tries to get at who it was who did it.  Kevin claims compulsion.  Downloads and deletes files.
  
−
::*many thousands of shots. Lamp destroyed by aggressive person. Matt, a former marine, arrives with new lamp! Takes action (similar issue in Sapolsky).  Zaki interprets both events. Others show up!  Muffins, socks, online helpers.  Virtual human shields.  36 people keep the button down to prevent panning the gun.
+
::*Orin Devinsky: Kevin’s neurologist. Testified in court that it wasn't Kevin's fault.  
  
−
::*Zaki project: Used virtual reality “scenes” to have inside experience of homelessness.  Scenes of typical events in homeless experience.  Simulation increased empathy even 30 days later and more supportive of housing policies. (Sheds light on research showing the wealthy are less empathic.) 
+
::*Neurological dive: deep parts of our brain can generate weird thoughts, but we have a "censor".  Maybe Kevin lost that part of his brain.  Observed in post-surgery monkeys.  
−
::*Acting and empathy.  Might pump empathy. Study involving adolescents in theatre v visual arts.  Thespians pumped more empathy. Reading fiction also does this.  (Moth stories, story core, human interest stories on news.) 
 
  
−
::*Manchester U fans study: Levine: study involving rabid fans, asked them to write about why they love Man U. Taken to another building, they encounter a jogger confederate sometimes Man U, Liverpool, blank jersey.  More likely to pass over Liverpool jogger.  Second version: Why you love soccer. Equal help.  Blank jersey left behind! Point: we have some flexibility in how we frame our group membership. A station at the empathy gym!
+
::*Lee Vartan, prosecutor -- Can't be impulse control.  Porn at home, but not at work.  He must have known that it was wrong.  But Tourette's can be circumstantially triggered even though it is clearly neurological.  Poignant exchange with Janet about staying in the relationship.  '''Could you have stayed in the relationship?'''  '''Kluwer-Bucy'''.  Months before sentencing. Medication makes him normal, but eliminates his libido.  5 yrs. - home arrest.  Judge acknowledges prosecutor's point.  How does the legal system assign blame when you are sometimes “in control” and sometimes not? She adds: '''You could have asked for help'''. (Reflect on this a bit.) 24 months federal prison 25 months of house arrest. 2008-2010. '''Do you agree with prosecutor's Vartan's point? The Judge's additional point? Why or why not? Consider other fact patterns / cases. Are there cases where "could have asked for help" doesn't carry weight? This one? What would your sentence have been, especially in light of the anti-libido meds?''' '''(Short group discussion on questions in bold.)'''
  
−
::*Back to Zaki's childhood experience. Lesson to learn that very different people could have deep and authentic experience. Also, we can have different values because of our experiences, equally determinative in opposite directions. "Naive realism" false. Empathy helps you understand that someone’s world is as real as yours.
+
:*'''Segment 2:'''  Blame - person or brain. (26:30 mins)
  
−
===Sapolsky, Behave, C 14, 521-535===
+
::*[https://law.duke.edu/fac/farahany/ Nita Farahany] - neurolaw professor (law and philosophy!).  Might be lots of cases. One count: 1600 cases from 1% sampled.  (Counter-argument: Isn't this just like blaming everything else for what you do wrong?  Isn't it too easy?). Thought experiment: Imagine a deaf person, who can’t hear a child in burning building. You wouldn't hold the deaf person liable for the death of the child. "Emotional inability" would also be damage to a physical structure (as in the ear).
 +
 
 +
::*David Eagleman, Neuroscientist - Makes critical point: Neuroscience isn't so precise. Like looking at earth from space.  New technologies may show us how experience is written in our brain.  (Back to Descartes: mind is the ghost in the machine.)  Slippery slope, the brain is always involved. Even healthy brain. Blameworthiness might be the wrong question.  Person vs. biology doesn't really make sense anymore.  The "choosey part” of the brain (the homunculus! - Explain: Sapolsky will make fun of this idea.) 36:00 minutes. Funny exchange. '''Self-modification''' comes up. The choosey part is also part of the brain. One system. Raises possibility that all decisions are determined. 
  
−
:*starts with "exposure to an aversive state" -- we call it empathy, but what is that?
+
::*Claim from Eagleman: Legal system should drop moral blame.  Adopt utilitarian approach.  Predict recidivism.  Point system exists for sex offenders.  Better than people’s "unguided judgement" (50% accurate). Point system and algorithm: 70%. Currently there is appearance bias for example from juries. [Mention controversies over sentencing algorithms [https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/01/21/137783/algorithms-criminal-justice-ai/].
−
::q1: When does empathy lead us to actually do something helpful?
 
−
::q2: When we do act, whose benefit is it for?
 
  
−
:*'''sympathy''' -- feeling sorry for someone's pain.  But could also convey distance or power diff.  pity.
+
::*A point system might be very predictive, but it might involve convicting someone of a future crime.  Would it be? Would that be ok?
−
:*'''empathy''' -- includes a cognitive step of understanding the cause of someone's pain and "taking perspective"
 
−
:*'''compassion''' -- S. suggests this involves empathy ''plus taking action''.
 
  
−
:*Emotionally contagious, compassionate animals.
+
::*Nita Frahany - Blame might serve social function of articulating norms.   
−
::*we are 'overimitative' - chimp / kids study524
 
−
::*mouse studies -524- alterations of sensitivity to pain on seeing pain; fear association seeing another mouse exp fear conditioning.  ''Mouse depression ensues!''  research suggesting mice respond proportionally and to social group (cagemates). 
 
−
::*Consolation: lots of species engage in consolation, chimps show ''third party consolation'' behavior, no consolation behavior in monkeys (another reason not to trust monkeys) -- prairie voles!
 
−
::*526: rats, amazing rats -- US/them behaviors, some flexibility.  review the details.   
 
  
−
:*Emotionally contagious, compassionate children
+
:*'''Segment 3:''' Dear Hector / Dear Ivan
−
::*527: describes mechanism of empathy: early emo contagion in kids may not be linked to cognitive judgement as later, when Theory of Mind emerges.  Neural activity follows this progression. “As the capacity for moral indignation matures, couple among the vmPFC, the insula, and amygdala emerges.”  Perspective taking adds other connections.
 
  
−
:*Affect and /or Cognition?
+
::*Bianca Giaever (radio producer who did the story on Hector) - Hector Black, 86.  Hector's backstory - WWII vet, Harvard, joins civil rights movement in Atlanta, moves South, adopts Patricia, a neglected child who lived nearby. Patricia's story (becomes a beautiful and productive person), college, adopts kids -- Patricia is murdered (strangled) and raped by Ivan Simpson. Hector feels retributive impulse. Ivan confesses. Hector considers whether he wishes the death penalty for him, decides no. Hector's statement at sentencing. Writes a letter of forgiveness to the murderer, which starts correspondence. Is it important that Ivan doesn’t forgive himself? Ivan's story - son of schizophrenic mom, adopted, horror.  Ivan abused.  Mom tries to drown Ivan and two other children.
  
−
:*'''Affective side of things'''.
+
::* Ivan tells the original story of Patricia's murder. Burglary. Drug use. Returns to Patricia’s house. Conversation with Patricia. Didn’t originally intend to kill her.  Patricia give him food. Gets high on crack. Ivan hears a voice that sometimes comes to him. Commits the murder. Can't make sense of it. Wants death penalty.
−
::*Some neurobiology: the ACC - anterior cingulate cortex - '''processes interoceptive info''', conflict monitoring, (presumably cog. dissonance). susceptible to placebo effect.  ACC activates when our internal and external “schemas” of the world are amiss.
 
−
::*Importantly, ACC activates on social exclusion (Cyberball game), anxiety, disgust, embarrassment, but also pleasure, mutual pleasure. (ACC activation is maybe a good proxy for the state that empathy and compassion address: We help each other settle our ACCs down.). Empathic responses involve our ACC, which is activated by your pain.
 
  
−
::*ACC also involved in action circuits.  Oxytocin, hormone related to bonding.  Block it in voles and they don't console.  Awwww!
+
::*Do we still blame Ivan Simpson the same way?  Hector tells his story.  Many letters exchanged.  A strange bond.  Hector has self-doubts about his behavior toward Ivan - sending care packages to Ivan???.  (Maybe he's just a weird guy or is he on to something?) '''How do you evaluate Hector’s approach to Ivan?'''
  
−
::*How does self-interested "alarm" system of the ACC get involved in empathy?  '''Sapolsky's hypothesis''' 530:  ''Feeling someone's pain can be more effective for learning than just knowing that they're in pain''.  '''Empathy may also be a self-interested learning system, separate from helping action.''' Maybe not a “moral emotion” until we use it that way.
+
::*'''Does Ivan's story change your view of the kind of threat he poses -- one from choosing evil/failing a responsibility vs. compulsion?’’’
−
 
 
−
:*'''Cognitive side of things''': How do we bring judgements about desert and character to bear on empathic responses? Chimps do. They only console victims.  Reason allows us to shut down empathic responses. 
 
−
::*One of Sapolsky’s weirder analogies at 532 re: the militia leader. 
 
−
::*Cognition comes in with emotional pain, judgement abstractly represented pain (a sign), unfamiliar pain.  (Takes more cog resources to process others' emo pain.)  Also with Thems. 533. 
 
−
::*socioeconomics of empathy 534: '''wealth predicts lower empathy'''.  Less likely to stop for pedestrians.  the wealthy take more candy!  (This can be primed by asking test subjects to make upward or downward comparisons prior to the choice event.)
 
−
::*especially hard, cognitively, to empathize with people we don't like, because their pain actually stimulates a dopamine response!  '''Empathy is part of our preference network behaviors!'''
 

Latest revision as of 18:11, 14 November 2024

24: NOV 14. Unit Six: Moral Responsibility and Criminal Justice

Assigned

In-class

  • Some basics of the moral responsibilty and free will discussion

Introduction to philosophical problems with Moral Responsibility and the Law

  • Basic Questions:
  • 1. Do we praise people for things that they don't deserve credit for and blame people for things that are not their fault?
  • 2. Is our concept of moral responsibility (and all of the behaviors and institutions based on it) wrong somehow? Is it out of sync with ideas about free will, what we know about the brain, and the causes of crime?
  • 3. What exactly do we mean when we say, "You are responsible for that"? Start a list. Causal, moral, both, neither. Do you find yourself referencing some idea of a "normally competent person"? When would you also hold someone responsible for becoming a normally competent person? What sorts of conditions make is more or less likely that you will become a normally competent person?
  • 4. If we clarify our understanding of moral responsibility, will we still approach criminal punishment with retributive intent?
  • Some concepts for thinking about moral responsibility:
  • Moral Responsibility - The idea that people can be held responsible, in some fashion, for their actions. Two main kinds of moral responsibility are "desert-based or "moral desert" moral responsibility" (db-MR) and "accountability moral responsibility" (accountability).
  • Moral desert Responsibility (db-MR) -
  • Def: You "morally deserve" something because you did (or failed to do) something that you knew you were expected to do or not do. It follows that you areblameworthy and deserving of punishment. Typically, retributive punishment - pain (from fines or incarceration) proportional to offense. (You can also talk about "deserving" something good...)
  • You might deserve blame for failing any of a wide range of expectations. Expectations can come from friends and family, from social norms, or from the law. Examples: Your partner expects you to call if you are late for dinner (they should accept responsibility), you deserve to be treated civilly by others, you worked a shift and deserve to be paid. You failed to observe the speed limit and you deserve a ticket.
  • Difficulties arise when we consider "excuses" and "limiting conditions". You're late for dinner because you helped save someone's life or because your alcoholism led you to a bar. You have Kluwer-Bucy syndrome.
  • Accountability Moral Responsibility -
  • If we just want to understand why someone failed in their responsibility and, importantly, whether they will do it again, we might ask them to give an "account" of their behavior and thinking ("What were you thinking!?") Giving an account of someone as having done or failed to do things we normally expect of others can be done quite apart from holding someone blameworthy (as in in desert-based MR). This might be an important distinction if you become a skeptic about moral responsibility as a result of this unit. Accountability MR is typically focused on understanding potential threats to society from an offender and, where possible rehabilitating offenders. Accountability MR may include accepting restrictions on one's liberty, from incarceration to probationary restrictions.
  • Main PointYou can still have accountability MR without db-MR. Is accountability enough? Why/why not?
  • Moral desert can be contrasted to what you deserve just because of your status, as in rights. This is also called "moral standing".
  • Moral desert can also be contrasted with "morally arbitrary" (recall Rawls). So, we would say you do not deserve praise or blame for things that are "morally arbitrary": things you did little or nothing to achieve (like an inheritance), things about you that were just your good fortune (good impulse control, a good noodle, athletic ability, at ease in social life...) or deficits and challenges that you have that you did nothing to deserve (having epilepsy, a substance abuse problem, anger issues, etc.). Some philosophers will say that you don't deserve to be blamed for things that are morally arbitrary. That would be a reason to prefer “accountability responsibility”.
  • Free will and responsibility -- Most people would agree that if we cannot freely will our actions, we cannot be held responsible for them. But what sort of free will is required? Is normal choosing (neurologically described) free will or do we have to break with the causal fabric of the universe! (Libertarian Free will). If the world is deterministic, everything has been "decided" (Including basketball games!). Does that mean there is no free will, or just that it might not be what we think it is?

Radio Lab Episode on Blame and Moral Responsibility

  • Segment 1: Story of Kevin and his wife, Janet. Kevin is arrested for child pornography.
  • 15 years earlier. Epilepsy seizures returned after surgery two years earlier. Can't drive so he meets Janet from work, who drives him to work. Romance... Still more seizures. Another surgery. Music ability in tact. But then his food and sexual appetites grew, played songs on the piano for hours. Disturbing behavior. Really disturbing behavior.
  • Reporter tries to get at who it was who did it. Kevin claims compulsion. Downloads and deletes files.
  • Orin Devinsky: Kevin’s neurologist. Testified in court that it wasn't Kevin's fault.
  • Neurological dive: deep parts of our brain can generate weird thoughts, but we have a "censor". Maybe Kevin lost that part of his brain. Observed in post-surgery monkeys.
  • Lee Vartan, prosecutor -- Can't be impulse control. Porn at home, but not at work. He must have known that it was wrong. But Tourette's can be circumstantially triggered even though it is clearly neurological. Poignant exchange with Janet about staying in the relationship. Could you have stayed in the relationship? Kluwer-Bucy. Months before sentencing. Medication makes him normal, but eliminates his libido. 5 yrs. - home arrest. Judge acknowledges prosecutor's point. How does the legal system assign blame when you are sometimes “in control” and sometimes not? She adds: You could have asked for help. (Reflect on this a bit.) 24 months federal prison 25 months of house arrest. 2008-2010. Do you agree with prosecutor's Vartan's point? The Judge's additional point? Why or why not? Consider other fact patterns / cases. Are there cases where "could have asked for help" doesn't carry weight? This one? What would your sentence have been, especially in light of the anti-libido meds? (Short group discussion on questions in bold.)
  • Segment 2: Blame - person or brain. (26:30 mins)
  • Nita Farahany - neurolaw professor (law and philosophy!). Might be lots of cases. One count: 1600 cases from 1% sampled. (Counter-argument: Isn't this just like blaming everything else for what you do wrong? Isn't it too easy?). Thought experiment: Imagine a deaf person, who can’t hear a child in burning building. You wouldn't hold the deaf person liable for the death of the child. "Emotional inability" would also be damage to a physical structure (as in the ear).
  • David Eagleman, Neuroscientist - Makes critical point: Neuroscience isn't so precise. Like looking at earth from space. New technologies may show us how experience is written in our brain. (Back to Descartes: mind is the ghost in the machine.) Slippery slope, the brain is always involved. Even healthy brain. Blameworthiness might be the wrong question. Person vs. biology doesn't really make sense anymore. The "choosey part” of the brain (the homunculus! - Explain: Sapolsky will make fun of this idea.) 36:00 minutes. Funny exchange. Self-modification comes up. The choosey part is also part of the brain. One system. Raises possibility that all decisions are determined.
  • Claim from Eagleman: Legal system should drop moral blame. Adopt utilitarian approach. Predict recidivism. Point system exists for sex offenders. Better than people’s "unguided judgement" (50% accurate). Point system and algorithm: 70%. Currently there is appearance bias for example from juries. [Mention controversies over sentencing algorithms [1].
  • A point system might be very predictive, but it might involve convicting someone of a future crime. Would it be? Would that be ok?
  • Nita Frahany - Blame might serve social function of articulating norms.
  • Segment 3: Dear Hector / Dear Ivan
  • Bianca Giaever (radio producer who did the story on Hector) - Hector Black, 86. Hector's backstory - WWII vet, Harvard, joins civil rights movement in Atlanta, moves South, adopts Patricia, a neglected child who lived nearby. Patricia's story (becomes a beautiful and productive person), college, adopts kids -- Patricia is murdered (strangled) and raped by Ivan Simpson. Hector feels retributive impulse. Ivan confesses. Hector considers whether he wishes the death penalty for him, decides no. Hector's statement at sentencing. Writes a letter of forgiveness to the murderer, which starts correspondence. Is it important that Ivan doesn’t forgive himself? Ivan's story - son of schizophrenic mom, adopted, horror. Ivan abused. Mom tries to drown Ivan and two other children.
  • Ivan tells the original story of Patricia's murder. Burglary. Drug use. Returns to Patricia’s house. Conversation with Patricia. Didn’t originally intend to kill her. Patricia give him food. Gets high on crack. Ivan hears a voice that sometimes comes to him. Commits the murder. Can't make sense of it. Wants death penalty.
  • Do we still blame Ivan Simpson the same way? Hector tells his story. Many letters exchanged. A strange bond. Hector has self-doubts about his behavior toward Ivan - sending care packages to Ivan???. (Maybe he's just a weird guy or is he on to something?) How do you evaluate Hector’s approach to Ivan?
  • Does Ivan's story change your view of the kind of threat he poses -- one from choosing evil/failing a responsibility vs. compulsion?’’’
Retrieved from "http://wiki.gonzaga.edu/alfino/index.php?title=NOV_14&oldid=28635"