http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/10/17/famil … index.html

I actually know someone like that killer. The guy is friendly, tries to sell cars, and is hard to understand.

What defect in the brain allows humans to kill? Has any thorough investigation of brain material been done to see if there is a difference between those that kill and those that don't? Obviously, soldiers would be exempt from such examinations, since they have orders to kill. But people wandering about in society don't have such orders and kill even when they aren't threatened. But humans generally kill when they are threatened, which leads me to believe there is some defect in the brain that invokes a state of emergency and they are compelled to kill. There has to be some logical explanation as to why people 'randomly' kill other humans.

A philosopher, Aquinas (if I remember correctly), stated that all humans have a 'core of evil'. That's not a logical explanation and is probably satisfactory for many. But to me, the quality of being evil is imaginary and there are explanations for actions.

If it were up to me, the killer in the link above would undergo extensive brain examinations. His brain, along with those of other killers would be put into a database and compared against those of humans that don't kill. With enough analysis of information, discrepancies could probably be found. We might not currently have the technology to properly the analyze the brain, unfortunately.

It is possible that the brain doesn't hold all the answers. There are other factors, such as time of day, diet, stress, etc. With just an analysis of the brain and no consideration for other factors, we might never get answers. For instance, some defect in the brain might only happen at a certain time of day with a certain diet. Some people might have the killer defect, but live in a climate that doesn't trigger the defect, if climate can trigger such a thing. An investigation of this manner is very complicated.

The thing is, is those exams did take place, there would be people who have brains just like that guy, but do not give into such impulses, or desires.

Would they be guilty?

People can come up with some very drastic measures to try and change a situation they feel  stuck in and unhappy with.

I'll agree that when people are placed in very stressful/uncomfortable/unpleasant situations they will pretty much do anything possible to get out of that.

It's just that those "trigger" situations greatly differ for each person, and what one person would be ok living with another person would find it untolerable.

Just for internal factors which influence our behavior there are genetics, childhood experiences, our perceived memories (which could differ from the actual events), our future goals/aims/dreams, etc.. 

Then toss into the mix all the many little external outside factors which affect us, and it's about impossible to name just 1 cause for 1 action.

One can only be guilty of a crime that person has committed.  One does not commit to having brain chemistry similar to others that happen to be criminals and, having done nothing to be considered a criminal, would therefore be innocent.

I think a more accurate depiction of this "core of evil" is just to say that all humans and self-interested.  People do what they think is in their interest, what serves their own personal "greater good" regardless of how warped that may be in a social context.  I have no idea how this guy decided to slaughter his family, but perhaps he thought doing this would somehow serve his perception of himself.  Now, after his arrest, does he think he made a mistake or does he feel he did what he had to do and accepts the consequences?

I don't see why you think there must be some logical explanation as to why people kill others?  Logical in what sense is perhaps a better question?  Many studies relating to murderers' physiological and psychological  conditions have been, and are currently being taken.  Below are two articles you might enjoy reading, but take them with a grain of salt (they're biased).

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article … 17&did=432

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/19 … 101830.htm

The human mind is so very complex, it's hard to say what can make a person snap.  However, one thing is clear, there must be something SERIOUSLY wrong with you if you hurt your own family!

Also, when you say "humans kill when threatened" I assume you mean when your life is threatened.  I would agree with this, and yet people often kill for trivial reason as well (such as to steal things).  It certainly makes you wonder about our species.  Other than humans, what animal kills when not threatened or hungry?  None that I can think of.  So perhaps in some ways, humans are the lowest form of life...

That's kind of depressing
I still believe that despite all these psychos out there, most people are decent and hardworking, especially here in the US!

cheers,

-avatar!

My reasoning is that the brain can be taken apart and the neural pathways (firing sequences) that allow one to kill could be mapped. A security system could be placed in the brains of people that would watch for that particular firing sequence and shut it down, thus preventing murders. Extremely far-fetched. Extreme. But it does make sense.

  This security system would not prevent someone from defending themself. My guess is that the firing sequence that allows one to kill for no reason is different than the one that allows one to kill out of necessity. There is some beauty in this system because it eliminates environment, past experiences, mood, etc. It watches for a precise firing sequence, which I imagine is the same in every human brain. It would be interesting to find out if there is any truth in my reasoning.

  This isn't about punishment, so people wouldn't be guilty unless they have done something. This is about the unpredictability of humans and my belief that technology could keep our behavior in check.

   There are 2 ways to deal with murderers:

  1. Kill them immediately after it has been proven they have done such a thing (so it can never happen again).
  2. Prevent them from murdering (so it can never happen to begin with).

  Current technology dictates we follow rule 1.

I really don't want to enter a "Let's Talk About Politics"-style debate, but one thing that immediately jumped out at me when reading your brain security system proposal is that half the time, murderers are justified in their own minds. How's a chip going to determine that the person's rationale is right or wrong?

Additionally, I think a human/animal's "default setting" isn't to not kill, it's to kill. The only reason we don't is because we've established moral standards not to. I'm not saying we'd all be indiscriminate killers without law, I'm just saying that natural law allows for it.

That, and I don't like the idea of brain machines controlling our behavior, even if it's to prevent murder--I'm perfectly capable of making sure I don't kill anyone, and to suggest that we need an external form of control is an insult to our humanity. The thing is, we're never going to be able to completely eliminate/prevent crime and deviance. There are too many x-factors. I don't think it's right to brain-shackle all of humanity just to make sure a few bad apples don't cross the line, especially when, one way or another, the line will be crossed anyway.

I agree with your post and my own idea bothers me as well. I don't consider emotions when I make imaginary solutions. What's more disturbing than security systems installed in every brain is that security systems might be installed in every house, the kind that keep an eye on you - not the burglars. Imagine waking up and being ordered to do jumping jacks and toe touches, etc.

Yes, yes, that was an amazing book, and so is Animal Farm.  I don't think our society has gotten anywhere near that level, but yes I do agree that with increased technology society is moving towards an Orwellian future.

-avatar!

By the way, did you get to see movie version of "A Scanner Darkly" last year, despite it being kinda hard to find due to very limited distribution?  The above aspects are present in the flick.

Yeah, I really enjoyed it but then I never read the story so I went in with no expectations.

My guess is we're very close to that scenario with one main difference - it won't be governments trying to control us. It will be companies trying to find out how best to market to us. Just like home versions of the gmail email scanner. Although, now that I think about it, the governments trying to control us scenario isn't all that far off either. Maybe they'll be tied in together.

Did I see something once that had the idea of sponsored dreams? Like companies beaming product placement into our own minds? Either I saw that in some film once or I imagined the possibility myself. Either way, you can bet the second the technology is available, it'll start happening.

Not before people use it for dream porn though.

Yep, the government wouldn't gain by trying to predict or control our behaviors so that we don't break laws, as long as we still pay our taxes.

So who would pay for all these brain analysis studies?....  Advertising companies would damn well love to know how the brain works, not to put up roadblocks, but to find out what makes us spend impulsively and proceed to exploit the hell out of that neuron firing mechanism.

It might not be worth it to be alive in a very advanced human society. Now I can really start to understand why the science fiction author Robert Heinlein stated that when a government starts requiring ID cards, then it's time to leave (the planet). It's just the beginning of the end.

  You have to live in a very advanced society to be able to leave the planet. But, in that case, the government would have such a degree of control that no one would be able to leave. That's the catch.

It was playing at only one theater in my area and I didn't feel like driving to that one. I decided to wait for the DVD release. What the author did to prepare for writing "A Scanner Darkly" is quite interesting. He was accustomed to being poor, so he lived on the streets for several years, with homeless people and drug addicts. Some of the characters were based on people he met. How that guy was able to write award winning novels and not able to legally drive a car blows my mind. Some of his other stories became "Blade Runner", "Total Recall", and "Minority Report". He was so poor that fellow author, Heinlein, once bought him a typewriter.

Yep, you're right. I'm sure you heard about the whole UK ID card thing. They're still trying to bring in ID cards but it has been thrown out several times and I think the momentum has been lost. The official rationale behind it was that it would help stop terrorism and would wipe out identity theft. I didn't quite understand how it would do that but I'm sure they had those parts worked out. There were several different suggestions on the form that these ID cards would take but most led to them eventually being compulsory and would be used for everything - you could be stopped on the street and be asked to produce it, you would have to show it at every transaction while shopping and that sort of thing.

Like I say, it looks now like the momentum has been lost on the idea but then maybe all it would take would be another terrorist attack to bring it back.

But here's the fun part - how they were going to pay for this rather expensive scheme was as follows: your data (with just about everything anyone could possibly know about you) would be sold to private companies for the purposes of, yes, marketing. Stopping identity theft by selling your info on somehow doesn't sound all that airtight to me. As it turned out, at the time the UK government was trying to bring this in, they actually went ahead and set up the database that the ID cards would lead to and, by the time the idea got chucked out, they had already sold data to over 400 private companies. Of course it was just the basics because the system wasn't up and running but it's a clear indication of where the priorities lay.

So that's the world we live in. Not the world of tomorrow. That's right now.