Writing Sample to be submitted with graduate faculty employment Essay

Writing Sample to be submitted with graduate faculty employment application - Essay Example There are several instances where brain scans are brought as court-room evidences to present that the suspect is somehow mentally challenged and thus cannot, for some reason, be charged with death sentence, and so be given lifetime imprisonment instead. Because of this modernity, criminal justice is challenged, and the issue remains unresolved. Immature Brain Neurolaw is creating a scene in providing judgments, leading experts from different fields in constant debate whether when to consider a brain as normal or abnormal, or when to consider the evidence as a legal mitigating circumstance or as an alibi. One contention raised by neuroscientists is that â€Å"adolescents are not as capable of controlling their impulses as adults because the development of neurons in the prefrontal cortex isn’t complete until the early 20s† (Rosen 3). The American Psychiatric Association backed-up this â€Å"anatomically-based† claim that there are differences between juveniles and adults, emphasizing that immature regions of the brain are those related with regulation of emotions, impulse control, risk assessment, and moral reasoning (Fagan 14). These are shown with the aid of modern technology which â€Å"rationalizes† the deviant behavior of juvenile offenders, and the brain is said to function maturely as the individual transitions into adulthood. This argument was essential in the Supreme Court’s decision for offenders below 18 years old not to be sentenced with death penalty. In addition, this neuroscientific evidence has been recently used several times in juvenile cases to influence the decisions of the judge and the jury. However, the complications neurolaw give our courts do not just end there. Law and Technology It is implied that a bigger concern in integrating neuroscience into the criminal justice system concerns cases where juvenile delinquency is not necessarily involved. There seems to be no clear delineation as to when brain sc ans may be considered adequate evidences, and how members of the prosecution committee would weigh the gravity of these proofs. However, the influence of neuroscience in the courts does not seem to cease. The law generally regards individuals responsible for their actions, but accommodations are sometimes granted to explain misconduct, and in this course neuroscience enters, arguing that differences in brain activity may influence behavior (Society of Neuroscience 38). High technology has made it possible for functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), and positron emission tomography (PET) scans to link who we are and how we behave, as asserted by neuroscientists. Kent Kiehl is a prominent neuroscientist who has added psychopathy to the list of conditions that can be observed in fMRI scans, other than those telltale signs established for schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (Haederle). Highly interested in why psychopaths behave the way they do, Kiehl is involved in a research that scanned the brains of prison inmates and conducted interviews. Kiehl is delving on a possibility that â€Å"there are developmental differences associated with psychopathic traits,† where â€Å"the more severe the traits, the more severe the impairment in the paralimbic system† (qtd. in Haederle). Along with his other assertions based on neuroscience, he believes that it is not a good idea to punish convicted offenders who possess malfunctioning brains. Neuroscience and Criminal Responsibility Another aspect, however, concerns the relevance of neuroscience