Key Concepts and Implications of Neurocriminology

819 Words4 Pages
Key Concepts and Implications of Neurocriminology The concepts Dr. Raine discussed in this presentation were very thought provoking and dealt with a concept that I have long been interested in. Many of us search for an answer regarding “where does evil come from?” When a violent crime occurs that has an effect on society we often hear phrases such as, “You know there had to be something wrong with him. No person in their right mind could have done something like that.” In our search for answers, it is very typical to assume there is a defect of the mind. When Dr. Raine discussed what I felt was a key concept, if not the central theme of his presentation, “Violent offenders may know right from wrong cognitively, but may not have the feeling of right and wrong” (Raine, 2010) I think he hit on an idea that we can all buy into. At least in part, many can agree with the lack of a conscious or soul. However, when the concept of responsibility comes into play, I’m not convinced that society is ready to be as understanding. To ask the question regarding whether or not it is morally and ethically appropriate to hold an offender responsible for their crime and punish them if they are neurobiologically impaired or to find different means of responding to their crime will most likely provoke anger and contempt from the victims of these crimes as well as society as a whole. And, I would say rightly so. Our criminal justice system is based on being held responsible for your actions. Our system of punishment demonstrates our goals very clearly: retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation. Most of society hold to these goals very tightly. The concepts that were discussed relating to the prevention and treatment of aggressive and impulsive behaviors I also found very intriguing. It forces the question of where we as a society are willing to draw a line in the sand

More about Key Concepts and Implications of Neurocriminology

Open Document