How Responsible are Killers with Brain Damage?

[C C]

https://www.scientificamerican.com/artic...in-damage/

EXCERPT: . . . Interestingly, the ‘criminality-associated network’ identified by the researchers is closely related to networks previously linked with moral decision making. The network is most closely associated with two specific components of moral psychology: theory of mind and value-based decision making. Theory of mind refers to the capacity to understand other people’s points of view, beliefs, and emotions. [...] Value-based decision making refers to the ability to judge the value of specific actions or their consequences. [...] The letters written by Charles Whitman on the eve of his killing spree provide a chilling window into a mind losing the ability to understand good, bad, and other people: “It was after much thought that I decided to kill my wife, Kathy…I love her dearly, and she has been as fine a wife to me as any man could ever hope to have. I cannot rationally pinpoint any specific reason for doing this.”

This research raises troubling questions [...] If their actions were caused by brain damage and a disrupted neural network, were they acting under their own free will? Should they be held morally responsible for their actions and found guilty in a court of law? Should we see them as patients or perpetrators—or both?

Some scientists have followed cases like Charles Whitman’s down the slippery slope, reaching the most extreme conclusion: that by uncovering the biological causes of behavior, neuroscience shows that “free will, as we ordinarily understand it, is an illusion”.

But these arguments depend on a faulty conception of free will. Free will should not be understood as a mysterious ability to cause actions separate from our brain activity. In fact just the opposite might be true: that free will requires certain connections between our brains and our actions. [...] This understanding of free will allow us to ask more sophisticated questions about the connection between the brain and criminal behavior when evaluating cases like Charles Whitman’s. Instead of just pointing to the obvious fact that an action had a neural cause (every action does!), we can ask whether a person’s specific neurologic injury impaired the psychological capacities necessary for free will—imagining possible courses of action, weighing relevant reasons, perceiving the moral features of actions and outcomes, making decisions that align with our values, and controlling behavior against competing impulses....

MORE: https://www.scientificamerican.com/artic...in-damage/

[Leigha]

If it were proven that the killer has brain damage, that would likely make him/her less culpable. But, psychopaths aren't necessarily all brain damaged, many have personality disorders which render them conscienceless. They literally have no empathy for the pain they inflict upon others, and many never resort to violence. But, they function very well in other aspects of life. I'd think a brain damaged person would struggle in other parts of life, not just with if it's right or wrong to commit violent crimes. It's important to have concrete evidence to support that someone's brain function could be so impaired as to making any other decision, than to murder someone else. (like perhaps, the killer is delusional, hears voices etc)

[Zinjanthropos]

As per usual I will take the evolutionary stance. Remember I'm a peace loving guy who wouldn't harm a soul, yet thinks he is staring reality in the face. Amongst our species are variants, ranging from deranged killers like Wittman to humanitarians like Mother Theresa. These are the extreme ends of the psychological/behavioral scale. Casually speaking I think most of us reside somewhere in between. I've said this before, for me life is an all encompassing thing and the species' form taken only matters if it manages to survive. Not saying it is, but by that I mean you could think of life as an entity if you wish, trying to maintain existence at whatever cost to the life forms that represent it.

So do murderers improve the current or overall future outlook with respect to the survival of life in human form? As appalling as it is to have deranged killers on the loose, do we learn from them, thus improving the survival chances of future generations? If you think of a killer as being a genetic mutant, does the species really need them around or taken out of circulation? 

I'll stop here. I'm trying to be as realistic as possible but I know people may feel offended. For me, I'm not about to go out and write the sequel to Mein Kampf or anything like that. My mantra is and always will be, 'Nature is out to kill you'. If you can avoid death then more power to Life. IMHO....Maybe there is weird shit going on in the universe and perhaps a lot of it has to do with Life in general if true. For us life forms, evolution can sometimes seem cold blooded, unmerciful and unfair. Whatever way we approach Life is all part of the grandness of evolution and I sometimes wonder if it should be a law of physics.

I remember hearing Dawkins say (paraphrasing) that most people in search of perfection, be it religion, system or otherwise are not recognizing the perfection of evolution. IMHO, too bad it is a harsh reality for many to accept but it is right there to see.