Susan Gillespie

ENGL 3001
9/28/15
Response 5

First off, let me begin by saying that these two chapters from The Anatomy of
Violence were extremely intriguing. I found myself constantly questioning the
author and myself as I was reading which is a very important literacy aspect to
include in written texts. I found it so hard to stop reading about this idea of there
being no free will, that it is all a mirage, and that some day in the future, we might
have programs like LOMBROSO (Legal Offense on Murder: Brain Research Operation
for Screening of Offenders) which scans peoples brains at the age of 18 and if they
test positive it puts at-risk people in indefinite detention, even before they have
ever committed a crime! This not only blows my mind because it is interesting and
a very different way to look at things, but also because this isnt that farfetched of
an idea. When I was first reading about a society that essentially locks people up for
crimes they havent committed [yet] and brain scanning children as young as 10
years old, I thought this was bizarre. Even the section in the reading about requiring
a parental license in order to be a parent seemed radical to me. But however, after
giving it much thought and reading Raines argument and theories based on
detailed research, his ideas started to become more and more clear and ended up
making more sense to me.

The excerpt from Raine starts out by talking about a man, Michael Oft, who was
normal throughout his entire life until about the age of 40 when he started acting
out in very abnormal ways. He would collect child pornography and rape his young
stepdaughter. Before his court hearing, which would most likely send him to jail, he
went to the hospital where a doctor discovered a massive brain tumor on his
orbitofrontal cortex. Once removing the tumor, Oft felt remorse and had no more
tendencies to sexually assault anyone. He knew what he was doing, and he knew
what he was doing was wrong, but he could not feel that it was wrong and he could
not control it. From this story, we come to the question, should we cut people some
slack in instances like these where the brain is in control over the persons actions?
More specifically to our class, should we cut children who murder some slack?
To answer this question based on personal opinions formulated by the reading, I do
think we should cut people (more specifically children) some slack BUT under
certain circumstances. This reading focuses primarily on how repeated offenders
have a clinical disorder or brain dysfunction and that due to damage to certain
parts of the brain, can cause an individual to become violent and a potential
criminal. If a person/child is a murderer and they have already committed that
crime, they should not be let off the hook under any circumstances; as Raine
mentions, We must protect society and unless we can treat brain dysfunction, we
must keep these people who commit these violent crimes in a secure condition. The
cutting some slack part comes into play when assessing what drove the person to
their crime they committed. Let me explain this further.

When looking at the brain of any criminal, especially violent criminals, their brain
scans will look quite different than the brain scan of a non-criminal or non-violent
person. This means that no matter what, the chemistry in ones brain is causing
that person to act in such violent ways. Whether that is because they have had
brain trauma at an early age, have a mental condition/disability, or have some sort
of damage to their prefrontal/orbitofrontal cortex. Also, a mix of neurological
dysfunction with that of social factors such as a bad environment or abuse is a
deadly recipe for heinous criminals. You might be asking yourself, what does this
have to do with cutting criminals some slack. Well, like mentioned before, if a
criminal has committed a serious violent crime, they should be taken out of society
in order to protect it (i.e. prison). However, if a person does not have social risk
factor of becoming a criminal and or has low risk factors of being a criminal, he or
she should be cut some slack in the sense that maybe they cant control the
crimes they are committing. Maybe it is a neurological issue beyond his or her
control. As a result, these criminals should be granted the right to have a brain scan
to see if there is damage to their brain that would cause them to exhibit
inappropriate behavior, to not be able to make moral decision, to not have
empathy, compassion, emotion, or sensitivity, and/or to act in a violent way. If
these people do have something biologically wrong with their brain, they should (if
possible) be treated for their brain dysfunction to ensure they will not act out in
such ways again. It is not enough to just get treated with medicine to cure a
mental dysfunction, but this person must also go through extensive rehabilitation
(this can be thought of as a form of retribution in a less radical way) as well as

being monitored closely. If they continue to pose a threat to society, then they
should go to prison.
I do agree with Raines observations and finding and find his research persuasive!
Like mentioned before, when first reading his ideas regarding LOMBROSA, I was
shocked to hear about how these ideas could actually work, but after reading in
more depth, it doesnt seem like a bad idea to have. Surely on the surface having a
society where people get punished to an extent for a crime they havent committed
seems ludicrous, but with the future he portrays, it seems reasonable! I especially
loved the section about requiring people to have a parental license if they want to
have and raise their kids! At first I thought this was insane, but after reading that
we have to get a license after going through hours of training to operate a vehicle,
why should parents be required to get a license after going through training
sessions on parenting? I found this very interesting! My main concern and uprising
question about these ideas of preventing future violence that Raine poses is that
what about people, in todays society, who have all the risk factors in the world, but
grow up to be just fine. How can we judge through a brain scan that someone will
100% be likely to be a criminal? We cant! To me, it still seems like an injustice to
punish people who have not committed crimes. For instance, just in class last week
while talking about why we are in college and not in prison, several of my
classmates said they had all the risk factors that point to them being a criminal, yet
they have turned out just fine thus far! That is where my main issue lies. My
roommate has alcoholism in her immediate family, and she is at-risk for being an
alcoholic too, but so far in her life, she has never shown any signs of alcoholism. So

should she be punished just because she is at-risk? Personally, I think absolutely
not!
All in all, this was one of the most intriguing pieces of literature I have ever read! I
even got my mom, roommates, and a friend to also read this excerpt. Raine poses
many interesting ideas for our near future to stop violence in its tracks. It is so
important to seriously take this into consideration and think with our future of
advancing knowledge and technology, there is so much that can be done to stop
violence!