Patricia Churchland on the effects of neurobiology on criminal law

August 25, 2016 • 11:30 am

Scientific American has a new article, “20 big questions about the future of humanity“, in which twenty well known scientists prognosticate about our collective fate. It’s not clear whether the questions were generated by the scientists themselves or by the magazine, but most of them, and the answers, don’t inspire me much. It’s not that I think the answers are bad, I just think that predictions of this sort—will sex become obsolete? will humans survive the next 500 years? when and where will we find extraterrestrial life?—are shots in the dark, and the answers not that enlightening. After all, the extraterrestrial question is simply a big fat unknown.

But one question and answer, called to my attention by reader John O., intrigued me for obvious reasons. The respondent is the well known philosopher Patricia Churchland. Here’s the question and her answer, and the bold bit in the answer is my own emphasis.

Will brain science change criminal law?

In all likelihood, the brain is a causal machine, in the sense that it goes from state to state as a function of antecedent conditions. The implications of this for criminal law are absolutely nil. For one thing, all mammals and birds have circuitry for self-control, which is modified through reinforcement learning (being rewarded for making good choices), especially in a social context. Criminal law is also about public safety and welfare. Even if we could identify circuitry unique to serial child rapists, for example, they could not just be allowed to go free, because they would be apt to repeat. Were we to conclude, regarding, say, Boston priest John Geoghan, who molested some 130 children, ‘It’s not his fault he has that brain, so let him go home,’ the result would undoubtedly be vigilante justice. And when rough justice takes the place of a criminal justice system rooted in years of making fair-minded law, things get very ugly very quickly.”
     —Patricia Churchland, professor of philosophy and neuroscience at the University of California, San Diego

This seems to me both wrongheaded and very superficial, especially when you consider that punishment is part of criminal law. But at least she’s a determinist and a naturalist.  We can argue (not this time!) about what this means for conceptions of free will, but I think it’s almost a given that a philosophy involving determinism (either hard determinism or compatibilism) will have implications for criminal law different from those coming from a philosophy of dualism.  

That’s certainly the case in practice, for the concept of whether someone could have done otherwise, versus whether he was “compelled” by uncontrollable circumstances in a criminal situation, has played a big role in our judicial system. If you’re considered mentally incompetent, for example, or have a brain tumor that makes you aggressive, or don’t “know right from wrong”, your punishment can vary drastically. If you’re considered mentally ill, you may be hospitalized; if you do know “right from wrong” (even if your circumstances allow you to know it but not act on that knowledge) you will be put in a pretty bad prison situation; and if there are extenuating circumstances that may have influenced your behavior (like an abused woman killing her abuser), your sentence may be light—or you may be even set free.

Under determinism, nobody has a choice of how to act, in other words, there are always “extenuating circumstances” in the form of environmental and genetic factors that caused you to transgress. The way the justice system deals with these factors will, of course, differ from person to person; but it’s vitally important to realize that no criminal had a free choice about what he did. (I’m using “he” here since most criminals are male.) And we can’t deny that lots of punishments are based not on deterrence, rehabilitation, or public safety, but on pure retribution: a vile sentiment that presupposes that someone could have done otherwise.

Even Sean Carroll, a compatibilist, realizes the implications of neuroscience on our justice system. As I quoted him the other day from his new book The Big Picture:

To the extent that neuroscience becomes better and better at predicting what we will do without reference to our personal volition, it will be less and less appropriate to treat people as freely acting agents. Predestination will become part of our real world.

Now I’m not sure I agree with Sean that predicting behavior has anything to do with treating people as “freely acting agents,” for we already know that they’re not freely acting agents. Prediction has to do with your strategy for “punishing” the offender (it affects recidivism and public safety); perhaps that’s what Sean means, but it’s not clear.

Further, Churchland goes badly wrong when she thinks that determinism is solely about understanding why someone does something, and then exculpating them when we do. That’s ludicrous. We need to prevent an offender from reoffending if they’re freed, which means rehabilitation; we need to protect the public even if we do understand why someone commits a crime (what if their neurons make them psychopathic?); and we need to deter others by example from committing crimes. (Deterrence is certainly compatible with determinism: seeing someone get punished affects your brain, often making you less likely to transgress.) I have no idea how Churchland draws a connection between understanding the correlates of behavior and letting people go free, and then—vigilante justice! We already know that “criminal law is about public safety and welfare,” and no determinist thinks otherwise. Determinists are not a group of people hell-bent on freeing criminals!

At any rate, the more we learn about brain function, the more we’ll be able to understand those factors that compel people to behave in a certain way when faced with the appearance of choice. And when we know that, we’ll be better able to treat them. But as we learn more about the brain, my hope is that we will be less and less willing to punish people on the assumption that they made the “wrong choice”,  avoid retribution, and begin to design a system of punishment that not only protects society and deters others, but, above all, fixes the problems, both social and neurological, that lead people to break the law.

 

Hooray! My university sends letter to incoming students decrying safe spaces and trigger warnings, promoting free speech, and refusing to cancel controversial speakers

August 25, 2016 • 8:45 am

I’m not much of a jingoist: I don’t root for America in the Olympics, I don’t favor my home-town sports teams, and, although I like the University of Chicago, which has treated me very well, I don’t go around touting it as The Best School in the World.

But today I’m feeling quite proud to be here, for the U of C has just affirmed its commitment to free speech in a letter sent by the Dean to all incoming first-year students. So suck it up Oberlin, Harvard, Stanford, Berkeley, Amherst, Portland State, Yale, and all the other timorous schools that want to restrict speech. We’re better than you! We’re not going to cancel invitations to Ayaan Hirsi Ali; we’re not going to bow to protests about “culturally appropriated” food, and we’re not going to let students shout down speakers. In other words, we’re going to expect our students to act like adults rather than spoiled babies, and to learn to deal with opinions that differ from theirs. In short, we’re going to give them the opportunity to examine their views rather than simply buttress their preconceptions.

For a long time, the U of C has been a bastion of free speech, adhering strictly to the principles of untrammeled and open discourse. Those principles are encapsulated in a report produced in 2012 by a committee appointed by the President and headed by constitutional lawyer Geoff Stone. You can see the short version here (“Statement on principles of free expression“) and the full report here (“Report of the committee on free expression“). Here’s an excerpt from the shorter statement:

Fundamentally, however, the University is committed to the principle that it may not restrict debate or deliberation because the ideas put forth are thought to be offensive, unwise, immoral, or wrong-headed. It is for the members of the University community to make those judgments for themselves.

As a corollary to this commitment, members of the University community must also act in conformity with this principle. Although faculty, students and staff are free to criticize, contest and condemn the views expressed on campus, they may not obstruct, disrupt, or otherwise interfere with the freedom of others to express views they reject or even loathe.

For members of the University community, as for the University itself, the proper response to ideas they find offensive, unwarranted and dangerous is not interference, obstruction, or suppression. It is, instead, to engage in robust counter-speech that challenges the merits of those ideas and exposes them for what they are. To this end, the University has a solemn responsibility not only to promote a lively and fearless freedom of debate and deliberation, but also to protect that freedom when others attempt to restrict it.

As Robert M. Hutchins observed, without a vibrant commitment to free and open inquiry, a university ceases to be a university. The University of Chicago’s long-standing commitment to this principle lies at the very core of the University’s greatness.

In light of all the mishegas going on in colleges throughout the U.S., doesn’t that just curl the soles of your shoes? And the principles of the “statement” have served as a model for speech regulations in other schools; FIRE reports that at least 11 universities have modeled their regulations after Chicago’s.

But things have got even better. According to many sources, including Inside Higher Education and Intellectual Takeout, incoming first-year students at the U of C have received the letter below, written by the new Dean of Students John “Jay” Ellison.  It’s a no-nonsense affirmation of freedom of speech, intended to let the students know what to expect when they get here. It also points them to websites about free-expression policies and provides them with a monograph to read.

The most telling paragraph is the third, to wit:

Our commitment to academic freedom means that we do not support so-called trigger warnings, we do not cancel invited speakers because their topics might prove controversial and we do not condone the creation of intellectual safe spaces where individuals can retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own.

You can imagine the huge smile that splayed across my face when I read that! We have had incidents in the past in which speakers were shouted down and forced to terminate their talks early, and I expect that the College will now do all it can to prevent that.

Anyway, good for the U of C, and kudos to Dean Ellison for standing up for principle in his letter. Read and smile!

Screen Shot 2016-08-25 at 7.44.14 AM

Readers’ wildlife photographs

August 25, 2016 • 7:30 am

We have two sets of urban wildlife photos today, the first from reader Diana MacPherson, who’s been absent for a while. Everyone’s captions are indented.

Eastern chipmunk (Tamias striatus) Among the Seeds:

Eastern chipmunk %28Tamias striatus%29 Among the Seeds

Eastern chipmunk (Tamias striatus) Nibbles Seeds:

Eastern chipmunk %28Tamias striatus%29 Nibbles Seeds

Red-legged Grasshopper (Melanoplus femurrubrum) Perched on Bean Trellis

Red-legged Grasshopper-%28Melanoplus f. femurrubrum%29 Perched on Bean Trellis

And these are from reader Christopher:

I hope these meet your standards for inclusion, even though I lack both equipment and skill to take great pics. These were all taken with my iPhone, the first five are from a Northern Cardinal, Cardinalis cardinalis, nest found on a back patio shelf in Olathe, Kansas back in 2014.  The exact dates are 4/9, 4/23, 4/25, 4/29, and 5/2. Unfortunately I missed the fledging, which happened a few days after the last pic.

IMG_0312

SubstandardFullSizeRender

SubstandardFullSizeRender[1]

IMG_0316

IMG_0317

The Three-Toed Box Turtle, Terrapene carolina triunguis, is from Fiery Fork Conservation Area, in the Missouri Ozarks near my grandfather’s home town of Climax Springs, MO. I have always loved how colorful and different each individual is, especially the males of this subspecies. I would love to know why they are so bright and wonderfully colored. Any ideas? [Readers?]

IMG_2173

Thursday: Hili Dialogue

August 25, 2016 • 6:30 am

According to my best information, it’s August 25, 2016, and another cool but drizzly day in Chicago. But we have good news from the University of Chicago, so stay tuned! And it’s a big day for foodies, too: according to Wikipedia, it’s National Banana Split Day, National Whiskey Sour Day, National Cherry Popsicle Day (?), and National Pots de Creme Day—all in the U.S.  And pots de creme isn’t even an American dish! Well, I wouldn’t mind eating either that French treat or a banana split, as I haven’t had either in ages. (Whiskey sours, a decent drink, I’ve had more recently).

On this day in 1609, Galileo demonstrated his telescope to the bigwigs of Venice; little did he know the consequences. And, on this day in 2012, the Voyager I became the first spacecraft to enter interstellar space. It’s now 20,000,000,000 km from the Sun, and still sending out data, which will continue until the batteries die about 2025.

Notables born on this day include Nobel Laureate Hans Krebs (1900), Leonard Bernstein (1918; smoked himself to death), Althea Gibson (1927), and Elvis Costello (1954). Those who died on this day include David Hume (1776), Michael Faraday (1867), Henri Becquerel (1908), Truman Capote (1984; read A Christmas Memory), Ted Kennedy (2009), and Neil Armstrong (2012). Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Hili is kvetching about the number of sofas, even though she already could be the subject of a children’s book: Hili has Two Sofas:

Cyrus: I’m glad we have two sofas.
Hili: I envy those who have three.
P1040713
In Polish:
Cyrus: Cieszę się, że mamy dwie sofy.
Hili: Zazdroszczę tym, którzy mają trzy.
In Winnipeg, Gus was given a special treat of fresh catnip leaves (actually only a single leaf), which, as you can see, he much loves. The catnip plant is kept well out of his reach!

Finally, from Trendingly via reader Michael, here are Iriss and Abyss, 9 month old twin kitties with eyes that don’t match within cats but do match among the cats:

19870

White Sox change the name of their stadium again, and it’s even worse

August 24, 2016 • 6:58 pm

Few major league baseball parks retain the names they had when I was a kid, for teams have learned that they can make big bucks by selling the naming rights to corporations. Only 11 major-league teams haven’t done that, and thank Ceiling Cat that Wrigley Field, Fenway Park, and Yankee Stadium remain.

Comiskey Park was the original name of the Chicago White Sox stadium, but it was demolished, rebuilt next door in the nineties, and then renamed US Cellular Field in 2003, with US Cellular paying $68 million. Now, as I’ve heard on the news, the naming rights have been sold again, and get the new name:

Guaranteed Rate Field

Yes, that’s right: it’s named after a lending company, and the rights hold through at least 2029. And I can’t imagine a worse name; this is even worse than Petco Park, the home of the San Diego Padres.

They interviewed some Chicago White Sox fans about this name change on the evening news, and, as you can imagine, they were not happy.

Everything’s for sale these days. The local buses have started being festooned with garish ads, websites abound with them (I pay to keep them off this site), and even park benches have ads on them.

What’s next? “Hey kids, let’s go out to Guaranteed Rate Field and catch the double header!”

Oy!

 

Terry Townshend, who just saw a Pallas’s cat, now sees two snow leopards!

August 24, 2016 • 2:30 pm

Ten days ago I pointed you to a post on Birding Beijing in which Terry Townshend and his partner Marie Ng were lucky enough to see and take videos of the rare Pallas’s cat—on Terry’s birthday, too!

Well, the guy is having a run of good luck, because his latest post describes an encounter in China’s Qinghai Province with not one, but two snow leopards (Panthera uncia, also known as the “ounce”)—and only six days after the Pallas Encounter.

Terry has a two-minute video distilled from the two hours he watched these beautiful cats, and also some swell photos. To see the post, click on the link above or on the screenshot below. The video is midway through the post.

Screen Shot 2016-08-24 at 2.28.40 PM

If I were religious, I’d say this guy is blessed. But being a naturalist, all I can say is that the laws of physics favored him over me.

h/t: Ben

What if Wilkins and Franklin had been able to work together?

August 24, 2016 • 12:30 pm

by Matthew Cobb

Today I was interviewed by the French radio station, France-Culture (colloquially known as France-Cul), for a programme about Rosalind Franklin, the King’s College, London, researcher whose data were used by Watson and Crick as the basis of their double helix model of the structure of DNA.

Much of the discussion, inevitably, revolved around the point raised by Jim Watson at the recent Francis Crick Centenary event in Cold Spring Harbor – but for chance events, we would speak of the ‘Franklin-Wilkins’ structure of DNA rather than the ‘Watson-Crick’ structure. During the interview I found myself coming up with an alternative version of history, in which we could have got to the Franklin-Wilkins structure of DNA, with rather interesting consequences.

I have been thinking about ‘what if’ versions of history for an article on another part of the history of DNA that I am writing – if it’s accepted, I’ll let you know; if it’s rejected, I’ll publish it here. [JAC: What are we? A garbage bin for rejected pieces? 🙁 ]

As the British historian Richard Evans points out in his excellent book Altered Pasts, which is all about ‘counterfactual history’, there are many problems with this approach to history, and most examples of it are weak attempts at wishful thinking and many have a clear political agenda; few cast any light on history or how it happened. Nevertheless – here’s my ‘jeu d’esprit’: What would have happened if Wilkins and Franklin had got on?

What happened

The main reason why Watson and Crick were able to come up with the double helix structure of DNA in early 1953 is that their competitors at King’s – Rosalind Franklin and Maurice Wilkins – could not work together. Franklin and Wilkins had strikingly different personalities, but above all they were misled about how their work was to be coordinated, thanks to the behaviour of the lab head at King’s, John Randall.

Rosalind Franklin

Wilkins was Randall’s deputy and had been working on the structure of DNA for some time, using X-ray crystallography. Randall decided to recruit a new researcher with greater expertise in this technique, Rosalind Franklin. As far as Wilkins understood it, Franklin was to work with him, or even be his assistant; the appointment letter to Franklin from Randall made clear that she alone would be working on the structure of DNA.

Wilkins was on holiday when Franklin arrived; when he returned, he found a highly-skilled, assertive young woman not only apparently in charge of ‘his’ project, but supervising his PhD student, Ray Gosling. A simple conversation between Franklin, Wilkins and Randall could have sorted things out, but it never happened (Wilkins didn’t see the Franklin appointment letter for decades, and was shocked when he did – he had no idea, the poor sap).

John Randall

Whether Randall wanted to kick Wilkins up the backside, or to get the two researchers to compete is not clear; whatever the case, the result was catastrophic – as well as the structural misunderstanding of who did what and who was in charge, there was a major clash of personality. The introverted Wilkins became even more withdrawn, and the outgoing and argumentative Franklin became frustrated.

They were unable to cooperate, and as a result the work in King’s did not get off the ground properly. Wilkins and Franklin were separated, each working on a different form of the DNA molecule – Franklin worked on the drier A form, which gave misleadingly precise X-ray images, while Wilkins worked on the biologically more significant B form, which gave blurrier images. They spent much of 1952 this way, not talking to each other, not collaborating, not exchanging ideas.

Franklin became dismayed and fed up of the atmosphere at King’s, and decided to leave for nearby Birkbeck College and to move from the study of DNA to virus structure.

Meanwhile, at the end of the year, the Cambridge lab, where Watson and Crick were based, heard that the US chemist Linus Pauling was turning to the study of DNA. The head of the Cambridge lab, Bragg, had previously forbidden Watson and Crick from pursuing their unofficial interest in DNA structure, as the problem was the ‘property’ of King’s.

With the threat of being scooped by Pauling, Bragg changed his mind and told Watson and Crick to start working on the problem; they were also given a semi-public report from King’s, containing summaries of the research they were doing on DNA, which included some decisive data from Rosalind Franklin.

(This is the source of the oft-repeated charge that they ‘stole’ her data; Watson’s later claim that Wilkins showed him an X-ray photo of the B form taken by Gosling (*not* Franklin!) and that this was the decisive insight, can be dismissed; the key step for building the model was found in the numbers. Ironically, this information was very similar to data presented in November 1951 by Franklin in a talk at which Watson was present; by his own admission, he didn’t take notes and didn’t listen closely, musing instead about her hair and her dress sense… More on all that here; that is not the point of this post, however!)

These data were what Watson and Crick used to build their double helix structure. They – or rather. Crick – could see the implications of those data where Franklin had not because Crick had recently developed a mathematical procedure for turning the 2-dimensional data produced by a molecular helix into a 3-dimensional model; he had published this in Nature in October 1952. This was pretty complex stuff, and Crick was one of the few people in the world to know how to do this.

By the beginning of March 1953, they had finished their model; at the same time, Franklin, working on her own, had realised that DNA was made of two strands, going in opposite directions, with the bases that connect the two strands organised in an infinite number of ways, providing the variability that could encode genetic information. She never got any further, because the Cambridge duo beat her to it, using her own data.

The double helix structure appeared in Nature in April 1953, together with two empirical articles, one by Franklin, the other by Wilkins. The Watson and Crick article included the acknowledgement “We have also been stimulated by a knowledge of the general nature of the unpublished experimental results and ideas of Dr M. H. F. Wilkins, Dr. R. E. Franklin and their co-workers”.

Franklin went on to make major contributions to virus structure, but died of ovarian cancer in April 1958. In October 1962, following the cracking of the genetic code that summer, Watson, Crick and Wilkins were awarded the Nobel Prize for determining the double helix structure of DNA.

What if?

Now, what if Franklin and Wilkins had been able to work together? What if Randall had been straightforward and explained how he wanted them to work – as partners, or even with Wilkins in charge (he was the more ‘senior’ in academic terms)? What would have happened?

Things would have turned out rather differently. Wilkins and Franklin would still have rubbed each other the wrong way, there would still have been rows, but it seems virtually certain that Watson and Crick, as a duo who shaped subsequent events, would not have got a look-in. By mid-1952, Wilkins and Franklin would have obtained data from both A- and B-forms of DNA, and would be trying to understand how they were structured.

Other people in the King’s lab were suggesting that the molecule might be a helix (this is what happened); Wilkins and Franklin, however, did not have the mathematical tools to work through the calculations and turn their 2-D data into a 3-D model.

And then something lucky happened – in summer 1952, Wilkins’ friend, Crick, showed him a manuscript he was writing, based on work for his PhD on horse haemoglobin, showing how to analyse data from helical molecules, using the specific example of the keratin molecule. Crick hoped to submit the article to Nature, and asked Wilkins to give him his opinion.

Wilkins read through it and realised its significance for his work with Franklin on DNA; after a brief hesitation, he showed the unpublished paper to Franklin. She, too, saw how they could use it, and over the coming weeks the pair worked through the maths, and then turned to building a structural model of the B-form of DNA.

By October 1952, they had finished the model, which was a beautiful double helix. They submitted an article to Nature, which appeared in December 1952, including an Acknowledgement that their work had been stimulated by a knowledge of the general nature of the unpublished results and ideas of Francis Crick. In 1962, the Nobel Prize was awarded to Maurice Wilkins and, posthumously (this was still allowed at the time), to Rosalind Franklin, who died in 1958.

Watson never got to work on DNA, nor did Crick, who both had very minor places in the history of science and were forgotten. Much of the history of 20th century genetics remained basically the same, but the pace and focus of work was different, lacking the intellectual leadership of Crick and the obsessive focus of Watson.

Wilkins’ life was pretty much the same, and Franklin’s name was writ much larger in the annals of biology – her name was taught to all high school students when they learned of the Franklin-Wilkins structure of DNA. However, in the early 21st century, a campaign began on the internet, arguing that Crick had been robbed of the rewards he was due, as without his method, Wilkins and Franklin would never have been able to crack the problem.

So what?

Well, probably, not a lot. But it’s interesting, no?

Heather Hastie on Reza Aslan’s apologetics and Islamic terrorism

August 24, 2016 • 11:13 am

I call your attention to a new post on Heather’s site, one that deals partly with Reza Aslan’s pathetic apologetics for Islamic violence. In her post, “Reza Aslan is still excusing Islam,” Heather points out Aslan’s curious assertion of a disconnect between religious beliefs and behavior—something that Maarten Boudry and I have also written about (paper available on request).

I’ll avoid excerpting Heather’s post, as it deserves to be read on her site, but she deals with one comment that Aslan made when asked about regressive Islamic beliefs like killing gays and apostates. This is what he said:

I mean, we may be appalled by certain regressive beliefs, but they are just beliefs. The issue is people’s actions.

I needn’t say more; it’s a ludicrous and dangerous claim Aslan’s making here. Heather goes on to show an absorbing 40-minute video from CNN, “Why they hate us,” narrated by writer Fareed Zakaria. I watched it in its entirety, and recommend that you do, too.  It’s in that video that Aslan appears, and, mirabile dictu, Heather actually agrees with something that he says.