Slashdot Mirror


Brain Scans Predict Which Criminals Are More Likely To Re-offend

ananyo writes "In a twist that evokes the dystopian science fiction of writer Philip K. Dick, neuroscientists have found a way to predict whether convicted felons are likely to commit crimes again from looking at their brain scans. Convicts showing low activity in a brain region associated with decision-making and action are more likely to be arrested again, and sooner. The researchers studied a group of 96 male prisoners just before their release. They used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to scan the prisoners' brains during computer tasks in which subjects had to make quick decisions and inhibit impulsive reactions. The scans focused on activity in a section of the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), a small region in the front of the brain involved in motor control and executive functioning. The researchers then followed the ex-convicts for four years to see how they fared. Among the subjects of the study, men who had lower ACC activity during the quick-decision tasks were more likely to be arrested again after getting out of prison, even after the researchers accounted for other risk factors such as age, drug and alcohol abuse and psychopathic traits."

13 of 187 comments (clear)

  1. Good technology by rmdashrf · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now let's first use it on our politicians.

    --
    Nihil in publicum sputa.
    1. Re:Good technology by hedwards · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We have the power, it's just that when half of Americans vote for people promising to bring the government to the knees, you don't wind up with the best or the brightest being elected.

      Which is strange, I would have thought voting for people looking to screw up the government would be just the ticket for effective and useful governance. Who'dathunk.

    2. Re:Good technology by Sulphur · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Now let's first use it on our politicians.

      Why? We already know.

      To calibrate the tests.

    3. Re:Good technology by gnasher719 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Now let's first use it on our politicians.

      Totally misunderstanding what this is about.

      There's a bit in your brain that tells you "don't do this, this is a bad idea" when you want to do something that is a bad idea. That bit usually stops you from getting into trouble. It will stop you from smacking your boss in the face if he upsets you, which tends to be a bad idea. It will stop you from smashing a car window and grabbing things on the seat. It will stop you from doing things that hurt you (in the end), including any badly planned crime. People where this bit of the brain is underdeveloped tend to do stupid things, including re-offending after getting out of jail and getting caught.

      On the other hand, criminals of any kind who carefully plan what they are doing are not affected by this. They also tend to get caught less often.

    4. Re:Good technology by isorox · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > We have the power, it's just that when half of Americans vote for people promising to bring the government to the knees, you don't wind up with the best or the brightest being elected.

      Or half the people hopelessly defending a corrupted system of horizontal of checks and balances government has the capabilities to heal themselves. The only solution to that is the vertical check: nullifying government when necessary.

      When you have 95% of the country always voting for their team, based on the assertion that the other team is wrong, nothing changes.

  2. Beware of sampling bias by SirGarlon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Does the more impulsive decision-making mean they're more likely to commit new crimes, or simply more likely to get caught?

    --
    [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
  3. Brain discrimination by i+kan+reed · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's not illegal to discriminate against people on the basis of their brain activity. Should it be? Can you judge someone on the basis of their biology? Is it really that person's fault anymore if a part of their body predelects them to wrongdoing? Where does liability start? Can you fix people? Should you?

    Too many questions about really understanding the brain that our primitive moral system could begin to address.

  4. Re:Targeted Rehab or Targeted Parole by characterZer0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You use this test as an excuse to keep certain people in jail for political reasons.

    --
    Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
  5. Re:Targeted Rehab or Targeted Parole by geekmux · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You use this test as an excuse to keep certain people in jail for political reasons.

    So, let me get this straight...you're going to continue to incarcerate me, for something I might do in the future?

    Believe me, I'm not questioning whether this would actually happen or not. We've proven corruption knows no bounds.

    I'm merely pointing out the "minor" issues with this concept, regardless of where our Rights have dissolved away.

  6. Statistically speaking, a lot by Lucas123 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    According to a 2011 Pew study, more than 40 percent of ex-cons commit crimes within three years of their release and wind up back behind bars. As reported on BBC Radio in 2005, the recidivism rates for released prisoners in the U.S. is 60% compared with 50% in the United Kingdom. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics of nearly 300,000 prisoners released in 15 states in 1994, 67.5% were rearrested within 3 years. A study of prisoners released in 1983 estimated 62.5%. In general, U.S. prisons offer very little to inmates that would keep them from repeating crimes once they're released. Perhaps we should rethink this strategy?

    1. Re:Statistically speaking, a lot by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Informative

      We also make it near impossible for those recently incarcerated to find work. Just try to get a non-shit job with a felony record. No wonder they go back to crime, you have to pay the bills somehow.

    2. Re:Statistically speaking, a lot by gnasher719 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Of the two strategies, the second seems better backed by numbers. The sharp dip in the crime rate from the later 1990s through the 2000s is thought to be due to much longer sentences being handed down to violent criminals starting in the late 1980s-early 1990s. Incarceration costs are up, but public harm is down. Spend money, get benefit.

      I read it was due to abortion becoming much more acceptable, which led to fewer kids being born into a bad family situation that would eventually lead to criminal behaviour.

  7. Re:Block brain scanners by memorizing a host file by dyingtolive · · Score: 4, Funny

    Speaking of people with lower ACC activity..

    --
    Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...