February 16, 2001

Professor Lappin

Psychology 115W

Our Reaction to the Free Will of Criminals

As the beating heart of a death row inmate is finally put to rest by the process of lethal injection, we try desperately to justify our act of capital punishment. Clearly, this cold-blooded killer did not deserve to live a normal life. And why should we, the taxpayers, support his pathetic existence in a jail cell? Obviously the streets are safer and we can all sleep better at night now that he has been put to death. A heartless man such as he, who clearly has no morals, no compassion for others, no awareness of the consequences of his actions, and no control of his rage, does not deserve to live. Or does he? When one examines what the psychological causes of these characteristics of an individual’s personality are, these assumptions become somewhat uncertain.

We are taught to believe that human beings have free will, or the capacity to choose the outcomes of our lives. This concept would imply that we are in complete control of our decisions. When making a decision, we have the ability to weigh the consequences, and based on our previous experiences and our morals, make a rational choice. Our failure to make the correct choice is seen as a character flaw, or a lack of values.

But Damasio’s Descartes’ Error discusses a different viewpoint. Damasio explores just what causes us to make rational decisions. In the case of Phineas Gage, brain damage affected his ability to be a rational and controlled human being, thus causing a complete change of personality. In other examples, patients with damage to the frontal area of the brain also had alterations in their decision-making skills. The studies involving these patients show that there is clearly a connection between our emotions and decision-making abilities and the functions of our brain.

We are all faced with moral dilemmas from time to time, such as when a man, a husband and father, loses his job and can no longer financially support his family. This individual has to make a decision of whether to go out in search of another job or to perhaps rob a bank. The latter option, although much riskier, is clearly an easier and quicker way of attaining more than enough money to pay for the basic needs of any family. Yet, few unemployed men choose this option. The reason being that they can weigh the consequences, consider their values, and determine that robbing a bank is obviously not the rational decision. The answer to this dilemma seems so clear and blatantly obvious to the majority of us. But still, banks are robbed. How is it that certain people lack this essential character trait?

In addition to our decision-making, our emotions are also determined by specific areas of the brain. Damasio describes studies where humans with brain damage are shown "emotionally charged visual stimuli-for instance, pictures of buildings collapsing in earthquakes, houses burning, people injured in gory accidents or about to drown in floods" (45) in order to evoke specific expected reactions, such as sympathy, sorrow, etc. However, the patient’s responses to the images were dramatically altered from what they were before the brain damage. The patients were found to feel little or no emotion, no sympathy, and were described as "to know but not to feel" (45). These findings are very relevant when examining the criminal mind.

If criminals do not have the capacity to feel, how can they make sound decisions? What we may see as a horrific crime, such as murder, may not arouse any feelings of compassion in someone who is completely void of this particular emotion. Certain individuals are therefore incapable of feeling sympathy for others, thus leading to a lack of morality, or what is often seen as a character flaw.

Assuming truth in these findings, we must further examine our own penal system. Prisons claim rehabilitation to be their main goal. But if the lack of judgment in the criminals is based on a lack of certain brain functions, is rehabilitation possible at all? In the sense that we cannot teach a blind person to see because it is not within the realms of science, we cannot teach a person to feel certain emotions or make rational decisions that they are not biologically equipped to do.

The above being said, the goals of capital punishment must be determined. If we are killing criminals with the intent of punishment, as stated in the mere description, is this fair and ethical on our part? But on the other hand, if rehabilitation is not possible, is our society more content without these certain individuals in existence at all? Perhaps the only way to rid our society of acts of violence is to do away with those capable of committing these acts. The purpose of capital punishment is critical in determining whether or not it can be considered a moral action at all.

In conclusion, the entire concept of free will is questionable when certain brain functions are examined. Simply our biological matter determines our decision-making capabilities and thus our capacity to be moral individuals. If this is true, how do we respond to those that do not make moral decisions, possibly as a result of deficiencies in this area?