Lawyers and Brains: Mutually Exclusive?

So the thing I keep thinking about this week is the episode of 48 Hours Mystery I watched last Saturday night. (January 13) The man on trial is absolutely the man who committed the murder and sexual assault he's being tried for. This not a who done-it, it's why done-it. The fellow claims no real memory of the actual deeds he did, only that he remembers being 'provoked' when a lit cigarette was flicked in to his face near to his eye. He next remembers being in the shower and then finding his victims. The link can tell you the rest of the story.

It's the defence that interests me. Defence claimed that the accused was 'insane' at the time of his crimes and that they could show the jury exactly what is wrong with this fellow's brain to 'cause' his 'insanity'.

"His defense team, for the first time in South Carolina’s history, would try to show jurors an actual picture of what insanity looks like."

Out came the PET scans which showed, at least to the defence's expert witnesses, damage or lack of development in a key area of the brain:

"Looking at images of Stanko's brain function, Dr. Sachy explained that one region of the brain directly above the eyes and behind the eyebrows is less functional as compared to a normal brain. Asked why this is significant, Sachy says, "Well, it's very significant, because it is this area of the brain that essentially makes us human.” "

Naturally the prosecution saw it differently:

"Prosecutor Greg Hembree dismisses Stanko’s defense with just two words: "junk science." "

The defendant was found guilty and sentenced to death. Jurors did not believe he was insane or that only an insane person could commit such acts. Given the imprecise and fuzzy definitions for insanity in the courts, including the notion of 'temporary insanity' it's no wonder jurors find the concept untenable as a defence.

It seems to me that this defence team was at least moving in the right direction in it's pursuit of what should be considered as the basis for an 'insanity' plea. They were trying to link mental processes to brain function. Pretty basic stuff. People seem to understand well enough that a heart pumps blood, and a stomach digests food, and an ear hears, so why should an intelligent person, with the education of a prosecutor, call looking at a brain and and trying to see how it functions and what ultimate purpose it has 'junk science'?

Prosecution witness said Stanko had a Personality disorder. Please, someone, come forward and point to my personality. If I have a hearing disorder you're likely to point to my ears, if I'm visually impaired you'd point out my eyes, so come on, point to my personality...

'Mind' and all that the word suggests is a product of brain function. This is not junk science. We know what parts of the brain do what ; PET scans allow us to watch what the brain is doing in real time.

With such scans it becomes possible, perhaps, to point to one's personality; we could surely watch what goes on when someone is told a joke that makes them laugh. We could show a serial killer photographs of his victims and watch what his brain does...

Does any of it belong in a court room? I say yes. Our current criteria for trying to understand criminal insanity is based on little more than subjective evaluations of what constitutes a knowledge of right and wrong. For a jury it's down to whose opinion they want to believe. Putting the brain into its rightful position as the generator of Mind can only enhance our understanding of why people do what they do. How much weight the legal system decides it will give to this new perspective remains to be seen but at least we can begin the process of trying to talk about the root causes of human behaviour in all its complexities.