(3300+ word article excerpted to less than 300 words)...
“At this point, what difference would it make!?!”
liberals are all killers at heart
The techs would keep re-running the scans, thinking the equipment was malfunctioning because they couldn't identify the image of any brain at all!
In 1987, Adrian Raine, who describes himself as a neurocriminologist, moved from Britain to the US. His emigration was prompted by two things. The first was a sense of banging his head against a wall. Raine, who grew up in Darlington and is now a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, was a researcher of the biological basis for criminal behavior, which, with its echoes of Nazi eugenics, was perhaps the most taboo of all academic disciplines. …And of course the Manchester Guardian goes on to try to justify it. Not only are they using “neuroscience” to get criminals off, but they will use it in the future to persecute groups of people based on their genetics due to a supposed predisposition to crime rather than anything to do with the family and the breakdown thereof.
I don’t care what their past is like or if they have brain damage justice still demands that they die.
The fact that they are somatically predisposed to murder simply reinforces the judgment that they must never again be free in society. The only way to ensure that they never again are a threat to society is to put them to death.
To permit them to live under a life sentence leaves the possibility that someday legislation or a judge will free them from captivity and they will again be able to prey on the inocent.
If he comes into your home here in Texas, you can examine it on the floor, walls and ceiling.
1.) All English "news" papers need to be regarded with deep, abiding skepticism, and the Guardian with many times the normal amount. What their articles frequently lack in authenticity, they compensate for in imagination.
2.) It's been conclusively demonstrated in numerous independent scientific studies over 99% of all convicted murderers ate hamburgers and French fries as small children; therefore, we need to ban hamburgers and French fries immediately for the sake of the children.
Having the predisposition to have problems does not always culminate in the problem. This is the nature/nurture debate.
All this is so that one day the left can declare criminality a disease and eliminate jail time for crime.
In the ‘mind’ of the left, there is no free will, so no one chooses to commit a crime.
The implication of neurocriminology, though – where it differs from the crude labelling of phrenology, say – is that the choice it presents is not an either/or between nurture and nature, but a more complex understanding of how our biology reacts with its environment. Reading Raine’s account of the most recent research into these reactions, it still seems to me quite new and surprising that environmental factors change the physical structure of the brain. We tend to talk about a child’s development in terms of more esoteric ideas of mind rather than material brain structures, but the more you look at the data the clearer the evidence that abuse or neglect or poor nutrition or prenatal smoking and drinking have a real effect on whether or not those healthy neural connections – which lead to behaviour associated with maturity, self-control and empathy – are made. The science of this is called epigenetics, the way our environment regulates the expression of our innate genetic code....
Raine rather likes the idea of public health programmes as crime prevention: “The teenage brain is still very malleable. There is good evidence from randomised control testing that omega-3 [fish oil] has a positive effect on young offenders, and even mindfulness seems to improve behaviour and brain structures.”
One wonders how this fits into it, as what we do for good or evil affects others, even if not damning or saving them because of their parents ctions:
And the Lord passed by before him, and proclaimed, The Lord, The Lord God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children’s children, unto the third and to the fourth generation. (Exodus 34:6-7)
What if the crime was not caused by the shape of the brain, but the shape of the brain changes in response to events and behavior.
It’s inside a turban?
Nurture has a lot to do with brain development (meaning parental interaction with a child). Children who are abused or neglected do not have proper brain development. The two go hand in hand.
The one on the right looks like a teddy bear, how can that be the brain of a killer?
How do we know that criminal behavior does not change the brain, like digging with a shovel creates callouses on the hand?
It sure convinces ME!!!!
