The Ethics of Plan B One-Step

Kathleen Sebelius' overturning of the FDA's Plan B One-Step
decision sparked a debate over the ethics of the pill.

Every year, 53% of US adults have unprotected sex with a new partner according to a survey by Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals (“Young People”). This number is alarmingly high, but there is a post-sexual intercourse pill that can lower the risk of pregnancy after having unprotected sex. The FDA has approved the drug, Plan B One-Step, for girls under 17 without a prescription, but Obama’s administration denied the motion, forcing women under 17 to obtain a prescription before buying the drug. In fact, denying the motion helps protect many U.S. citizens. Obama’s choice to overrule the FDA is acceptable because he is obligated to protect parents’ authority over their children and to decrease women and girls’ rape risk.

Plan B One-Step is an oral contraceptive that can decrease the risk of pregnancy post-sex. Created to be used within 72 hours of unprotected sex, or sex where other birth control failed, Plan B and other oral contraceptives work similarly. The pill’s main ingredient, levonorgestrel, stops the sperm or egg’s movement to interrupt fertilization and thus delay or prevent ovulation. By obstructing egg fertilization, Plan B One-Step can often successfully prevent ovulation.

Plan B One-Step works efficiently because it inhibits fertilization. Because Plan B One-Step does not inhibit fertilization once it has occurred, it can be classified as a contraceptive, not as abortion. Although not as protective as other contraceptives, the pill shows extreme efficiency at its job. If taken within 24 hours of sexual intercourse, a 95% pregnancy risk reduction is seen (“Plan B”). If taken within 72 hours, a 61% reduction in pregnancy occurs (“Plan B”). Even 72 hours later, Plan B One-Step offers some protection. Overall, the scientific data backing Plan B’s effectiveness is very sound and has proven over many years to work effectively as an emergency contraceptive.

The US Food and Drug Administration must approve all drugs using submitted scientific evidence, before the drug becomes publicly accessible. The FDA gave Plan B One-Step prescription-level approval in 1999. Later, in 2006, the drug received approval stating women 17 and older could use the pill when bought over-the-counter. All females 16 years old and younger still had to obtain a prescription from a medical professional in order to obtain the drug.

Then, in 2011 the problem surfaced once again. All the scientific research indicated that 11-year-olds and 18-year-olds can both safely take the emergency contraception as 17-year-olds. That is why, in late 2011, the FDA approved the drug for non-prescription use by all women older than 11 years old. However, within a few days the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, denied the motion and said the age restriction stayed on the drug (Melnick). A few days later, President Barack Obama supported Sebelius’ decision.

Back in 2009, Obama told scientists that his administration and himself would not interfere with science and fact, but upholding ethics forced changes to what he previously stated. In 2009, he agreed to not intervene on decisions of scientists. This created an outcry when he backed Sebelius’s 2011 decision concerning Plan B. But, many articles fail to mention the strong ethics of American parents’ that Obama is expected to uphold. If Sebelius did not reject the FDA’s okay for the drug to be sold to teenagers without a prescription, then parents would have objected the decision. Parents would complain that their young daughters are under their guardianship and the government does not have the right to take away their paternal rights. When Obama made his promise, he could not have foreseen the future debates regarding Plan B One-Step and the ethical issues, not just science issues, at hand.

An age 11 girl more than likely still lives with her parents (or some form of legal guardians). Her parents still make sure she goes to school; they still make sure she has food to eat, and they are still, in general, in charge of her. Simply put, today’s society does not make it possible for an 11-year-old to live on her own. Also, 11 year-olds’ parents and legal guardians still hold legal responsibility for their daughter. Because of this, shouldn’t they have a say in the pills their daughter takes? Because teenagers under 17 are under their parents’ guardianship and are their parents’ responsibility, parents still have authority over their children that needs upheld.

Obama’s decision to not allow young girls 16 and younger the ability to buy Plan B sans prescription clearly defends American parents’ rights. Other countries, not just the United States, protect a parent’s authoritative right concerning Plan B One-Step. In England, a woman must have turned 16 years of age to buy the emergency contraceptive. A required doctor’s prescription must be obtained in Italy; and in Finland, a girl must be at least 15-years-old to buy Plan B (Tomasky). All these First World countries see the important parent’s right to protect their children and have thus put restrictions concerning the ages of women who can buy Plan B One-Step without prescription.

Additionally, Obama’s decision helped protect women and teenagers from rape. Many anti-abortion groups feared that the easy access of emergency contraceptives will increase the likelihood rapists would rape young girls and women (Bassett). Although they may not seem related, increasing emergency contraceptive accessibility could encourage rape. Using emergency contraceptives, rapists can more easily cover-up their evidence. An easier cover-up causes rapists to not worry about the consequences. Obama helped protect women from rapists who may use such easy access to an emergency contraceptive as cover-up when they rape innocent women when he backed Sebelius’ decision.

In conclusion, when Obama supported Sebelius’s rejection of the FDA’s Plan B One-Step approval, he fulfilled his job to protect American parents’ authority over their children and protect women. Because girls not yet 17 years old must receive a Plan B One-Step prescription, they can still buy the pill, but their parents will still retain some authority over them. Obama made the correct decision for today’s society when his administration overruled the FDA.

Works Cited

Bassett, Laura. "Plan B Over-The-Counter Initiative Nixed By Kathleen Sebelius, Age Limit Remains In Place." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 07 Dec. 2011. Web. 24 Feb. 2013. 

"FDA's Decision Regarding Plan B: Questions and Answers." FDA's Decision Regarding Plan B: Questions and Answers. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 4 Mar. 2009. Web. 24 Feb. 2013.

Melnick, Meredith. "U.S. Rejects FDA Advice to Sell Plan B One-Step Over the Counter." Time.com. Time, 07 Dec. 2011. Web. 24 Feb. 2013.

"Plan B One-Step Emergency Contraception." Plan B/Emergency Contraception. McKinley Health Center, 2012. Web. 25 Feb. 2013.

Tomasky, Michael. "Michael Tomasky: A Progressive Defense of the White House on Plan B." The Daily Beast. Newsweek/Daily Beast, 09 Dec. 2011. Web. 24 Feb. 2013.

"Young People Report High Levels of Unprotected Sex and Barriers Affecting Their Right to Obtain  Trustworthy Information about Sex and Contraception." ESC. European Society of Contraception, 26 Sept. 2011. Web. 25 Feb. 2013.

The Effects of Early Stressful Environments on Anxiety and Depression Disorders

Common knowledge states that children cry and experience sadness when separated from their parents, yet, early life stresses can have lingering affects on the brain as time goes. Childhood stress can be connected to increased anxiety and depression around age eighteen, especially in females. During childhood, cortisol, a stress hormone found in saliva, was found in elevated levels in the brain of girls with stressful environments and strained interactions with their parents, which has been linked to permanent negative effects on the brain (1).

Cortisol is a steroid hormone that becomes released by the adrenal glands during stressful situations.   Besides stress, there are other factors that can elevate cortisol levels such as caffeine, sleep deprivation, severe trauma, anorexia, and severe calorie restriction.  Cortisol helps to raise blood sugar levels when levels become low and it helps the body respond to stress.  However, if the body constantly faces excessive stress, then increased cortisol can later cause serious health problems (1).  Cortisol links two parts of the brain, the amygdala and prefrontal cortex, to work together to shut down negative emotions.  Yet, weak interactions between these two brain parts can sometimes curb the common stress response, causing one to not respond properly to normal daily activities (2).

Cortisol is a steroid hormone that becomes released by the adrenal glands during stressful situations.   Besides stress, there are other factors that can elevate cortisol levels such as caffeine, sleep deprivation, severe trauma, anorexia, and severe calorie restriction.  Cortisol helps to raise blood sugar levels when levels become low and it helps the body respond to stress.  However, if the body constantly faces excessive stress, then increased cortisol can later cause serious health problems (1).  Cortisol links two parts of the brain, the amygdala and prefrontal cortex, to work together to shut down negative emotions.  Yet, weak interactions between these two brain parts can sometimes curb the common stress response, causing one to not respond properly to normal daily activities (2).

Depression is a very serious illness that affects many people; however, not until recently has research proved that stress in females at a young age may permanently alter the brain and contribute to depression and anxiety later in life.  At four years old, a girl experiencing early life trauma and stressful events such as detachment from parents can later experience permanent effects on the brain, even as early as age eighteen (2). Some examples of early life traumas include physical and sexual trauma, chaotic environments at home, and strained relationships between parents and children.  Although stressful events can occur in many young girls’ homes, the effects of increased levels of cortisol and stress may not be exposed until too late (4).

Depression is a very serious illness that affects many people; however, not until recently has research proved that stress in females at a young age may permanently alter the brain and contribute to depression and anxiety later in life.  At four years old, a girl experiencing early life trauma and stressful events such as detachment from parents can later experience permanent effects on the brain, even as early as age eighteen (2). Some examples of early life traumas include physical and sexual trauma, chaotic environments at home, and strained relationships between parents and children.  Although stressful events can occur in many young girls’ homes, the effects of increased levels of cortisol and stress may not be exposed until too late (4).

In a study with adolescents, psychologists tested four groups: those clinically depressed, nondepressed psychiatric controls, nonpsychiatric controls, and resolved depression. Within these groups, researchers determined that the depressed adolescents had a much lower attachment with their parents.   Children who had strong, secure relationships with their parents were at an advantage emotionally compared to children with weak, insecure child-parent relationships. Those with healthy child-parent relationships showed negative correlation with severity of depression (5).   Furthermore, adolescents who were insecure with the relationships with their parents had a stronger vulnerability to having a depressive disorder, proving the theory that these stressful conditions have lingering effects.

A prominent study of this correlation of childhood stress and depression was the Wisconsin Study of Families and Work led by Marilyn Essex.  In this study, four-year old children were exposed to stressful situations such as maternal depression and parental arguments to determine the impact of stress on human development (6).  The patients in this study had medical information samples taken from their birth to early adulthood. From these samples they determined that the four-year olds with higher levels of everyday stress tend to have higher amounts of cortisol in their saliva than the children without the higher stress. When these children had elevated levels of cortisol, they displayed more aggression, impulsivity, and other behavioral problems as early as just two years later.  Then fourteen years later, at age eighteen, the brain started to function differently, but not in a positive way (2).

To test the brain of the eighteen year olds, researchers scanned their brain regions to determine the connectivity.  One of the brain regions, the amygdala, has the function of processing fear and emotion (7).  Another brain region, the prefrontal cortex is involved in curbing the amygdala’s stress response (2).  When the brain has strong connectivity between the amygdala and prefrontal cortex, typically there are lower levels of cortisol.  If the two brain regions have weak connectivity, there are higher levels of cortisol (8).  Therefore, when these two areas do not communicate, it becomes difficult to project proper emotions to stressful situations.  This further leads to inability to cope and vulnerability to depressive and anxiety disorders.

This study presents opposing arguments.  Some argue that a child can stress later in life and still have these differences in the brain, and stressful situations do not have to start at such a young age.  Also, it is argued that stress does not correlate with the differences in the brain.  For example, in a recent study, girls with higher scores on anxiety tests had weaker connections between the amygdala and the prefrontal cortex, correlating with the idea ‘s of the Wisconsin Study of Families and Work (5).  Yet, girls with higher depression levels had a stronger connection between these two areas, which is questionable to researchers.  Although this result contrasts with the association of early stress to later depression and anxiety problems, there have been many more studies and trials to prove this theory.  For example, the Wisconsin Study of Families and Work began in 1990 and has included 570 families in their research, having a majority of consistent results (6).   Continuing to perform multiple studies can increase and solidify the understanding of how stress affects the brain and can possibly prevent long-term disorders for children living in stressful environments.

This study presents opposing arguments.  Some argue that a child can stress later in life and still have these differences in the brain, and stressful situations do not have to start at such a young age.  Also, it is argued that stress does not correlate with the differences in the brain.  For example, in a recent study, girls with higher scores on anxiety tests had weaker connections between the amygdala and the prefrontal cortex, correlating with the idea ‘s of the Wisconsin Study of Families and Work (5).  Yet, girls with higher depression levels had a stronger connection between these two areas, which is questionable to researchers.  Although this result contrasts with the association of early stress to later depression and anxiety problems, there have been many more studies and trials to prove this theory.  For example, the Wisconsin Study of Families and Work began in 1990 and has included 570 families in their research, having a majority of consistent results (6).   Continuing to perform multiple studies can increase and solidify the understanding of how stress affects the brain and can possibly prevent long-term disorders for children living in stressful environments.

Works Cited

1.
http://www.nature.com/news/infant-stress-affects-teen-brain-1.11786

Hughes, Virginia. "Infant Stress Affects Teen Brain." Nature.com. Nature Publishing Group, 11 Nov. 2012. Web. 05 Feb. 2013.

2.
http://www.news.wisc.edu/21255

"Early Stress May Sensitize Girls' Brains for Later Anxiety." Early Stress May Sensitize Girls’ Brains for Later Anxiety. University of Wisconsin-Madison News, 11 Nov. 2012. Web. 24 Feb. 2013. <http://www.news.wisc.edu/21255>.

3. http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=266c9d3a-4654-4883-b55d-1d3fb0d5419b%40sessionmgr10&vid=3&hid=17

Kallen, V.L., J.H.M. Tulen, E.M.W.J. Utens, P.D.A. Treffers, F.H. De Jong, and R.F. Ferdinand. "Associations between HPA Axis Functioning and Level of Anxiety in Children and Adolescents with an Anxiety Disorder." Depression and Anxiety 25.2 (2008): 131-41. Print.


4.
http://link.springer.com.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/article/10.1007/s00213-010-2007-4/fulltext.html

Carpenter, Linda L., Thaddeus T. Shattuck, Audrey R. Tyrka, Thomas D. Geracioti, and Lawrence H. Price. "Effect of Childhood Physical Abuse on Cortisol Stress Response." Psychopharmacology 214.1 (2011): 367-75. Print.

5. http://download.springer.com.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/static/pdf/32/art%253A10.1007%252FBF01342754.pdf?auth66=1363024862_ae6121c75ebb69fbc167899a2788a159&ext=.pdf

Armsden, Gay C., Elizabeth McCauley, Mark T. Greenberg, Patrick M. Burke, and Jeffrey R. Mitchell. "Parent and Peer Attachment in Early Adolescent Depression." Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 18.6 (1990): 683-97. Print.

6.
http://128.104.130.44/webdocs/researchers.htm
Hughes, Virginia. "Infant Stress Affects Teen Brain." Nature.com. Nature Publishing Group, 11 Nov. 2012. Web. 05 Feb. 2013.

7.
http://www.horicon.lib.wi.us/brain%20development/teen%20stress.html

"Teen Stress and the Amygdala." Teen Stress and the Amygdala. Library Brains, n.d. Web. 24 Feb. 2013. <http://www.horicon.lib.wi.us/brain development/teen stress.html>.

8.
http://healthyliving.msn.com/diseases/anxiety/early-exposure-to-stress-at-home-affects-girls-brains-study-says

Dotinga, Randy. "Early Exposure to Stress at Home Affects Girls' Brains, Study Says."MSN Healthy Living. N.p., 12 Nov. 2012. Web. 24 Feb. 2013. <http://healthyliving.msn.com/diseases/anxiety/early-exposure-to-stress-at-home-affects-girls-brains-study-says>.

Treatments For Veterans With PTSD

In 2004 an American soldier named Carlos Huerta returned home from serving in Iraq.  Carlos served as a Chaplain in the military and therefore had the difficult responsibility of telling families about their loved ones passing away at war. After a couple years the images of the battlefield still haunted Huerta, making him feel as if he had never returned home (4). Huerta suffered from a disease called Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), a common disease affecting veterans. “PTSD is a mental health condition that’s triggered by a terrifying event.  Symptoms may include flashbacks, nightmares and severe anxiety, as well as uncontrollable thoughts about the event (5).” One in five veterans or currently active soldiers has or will experience PTSD (1).  Many PTSD victims are mistreated by caretakers after diagnosis, resulting in one-third of those affected never fully recovering.  Active soldiers should be routinely tested for PTSD symptoms upon arriving back home by the government. To prevent soldiers or veterans diagnosed with PTSD from getting worse over time and leading to later serious problems, the government should implement group psychotherapy and cognitive-behavioral therapy.  This strategy would help reduce the tragedies that result from PTSD such as depression, substance abuse, divorce, suicide, and homelessness.
 
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, if untreated can lead to the destruction of a veteran’s life due to haunting memories eating away at an individual and influencing their everyday attitude and outlook on life.  Although many soldiers come back home and continue living their lives as they did before, this is not always the case.  When Huerta returned home from the war in Iraq he knew that his life wasn’t the same and that he had a problem but he decided to not be open about it.  Many soldiers have a “stick it out” attitude that they develop while serving and Huerta was no exception (4).  He felt that suppressing his painful memories was the key to them going away and his life going back to normal (4).   Some soldiers come home as drastically changed people due to one or many traumatic events that they experience while overseas.  Huerta admits to being haunted by images such as seeing a mother hang herself, being covered in the blood of an Iraqi child, and having to tell families that someone important to them had passed away.  There have been many cases of veterans not being diagnosed with PTSD when they actually have it and other cases of not receiving the proper treatment for the disease.  When a veteran has PTSD and doesn’t do anything to treat it, the disease tends to get worse over time since holding these painful memories inside eats away at someone (1).  One day, five years after Huerta returned home from the war, he began to experience feelings of claustrophobia and chest pain which he compared to as having a heart attack (4).  After visiting a doctor’s office and speaking to mental health specialist Huerta was diagnosed with PTSD.  This shows that the condition must be treated eventually and attempting to combat it by staying quiet is ineffective.   Common results of depression and anxiety that result from the disease are suicide, becoming homeless, divorce, and an overall decrease in a satisfactory life.  Statistics show that 18 veterans commit suicide every day and fifty percent of current homeless veterans have a serious mental illness such as PTSD (1&2).  Huerta states that “I cannot say that a piece of me at one time did not wonder if the world, my family, would have been better off without me (4).”  Huerta also admits to purposely not trying to get too close to his new babies when he got home because he didn’t want to become personally attached and then be deployed again (4).  The personal relationships of Carlos Huerta’s life were deeply affected as a result of his condition.  PTSD needs to be taken more seriously by our government so there are less cases of veterans being untreated and suffering through hard times when they come home.  The people who risk their lives to protect our country are often finding themselves in negative states of mind due to a poor testing and treatment system.  Every soldier should be tested for it routinely while overseas and when they get home in order to prevent tragedies that tear apart lives and families.

When a veteran or a soldier is diagnosed with PTSD they should be required to return home and receive government compensation so they can participate in group psychotherapy and cognitive-behavioral therapy without worrying about their financial situation.  Since the veterans wouldn’t be distracted by their duty’s at work they would be able to put all their effort and concentration into combatting their disease.  

Group psychotherapy with other veterans has been found to be the most effective treatment for veterans that were recently diagnosed with the disease (3).  Group psychotherapy is when a group of people who are dealing with similar problems share their experiences and help each other through the problems that they are dealing with.  This kind of treatment allows the victims to feel secure because they are around people who have experienced similar traumatic events.  There is a sense of unified empathy and trust in this type of group therapy which allows everyone participating to feel comfortable sharing their experiences.  Group therapy is helpful because everyone involved feels as if they are all working towards the same goal and are there for each other.  This unity helps reduce the amount of loneliness and helplessness that many PTSD victims typically feel. Huerta said that when he came home he felt like “something important was stolen from me and there was nobody I could talk to about it except the guys I was over there with (4).”  Huerta explains that even though everyone had different experiences the one thing that they shared is that they all felt like they were different from people who were not in the war. The sense of unity in group therapy with other veterans is something that is nonexistent in one on one therapy.  Huerta says that he and the over veterans he talked to were “reluctant about “officially” talking to someone (4).”  It’s been pointed out that it’s hard for veterans to trust a professional therapist to the same extent since they didn’t go through the same experiences first hand (3).  


While PTSD victims are participating in group psychotherapy they should also be receiving cognitive-behavioral therapy which instructs the patients on how to help themselves get over the disease.  This kind of therapy involves the therapist and patient creating goals together and the patient doing “homework exercises” that emphasize what was discussed during a section (3).  The therapist teaches the patient skills that are necessary to know in situations such as being tempted by substance abuse and effectively communicating with people (3).  Huerta did not receive this kind of treatment but it would have benefitted him immensely since he was unable to effectively communicate with his family about the events that were bothering him.  Huerta talks about feeling guilty due to delivering devastating news to families during his time as a chaplain.  Huerta expresses that “I know I can’t change their (families related to dead soldiers) pain, but I can change mine and the pain I inflicted on my family due to war (4).”  If Huerta had participated in cognitive-behavioral therapy then he would have most likely been a better communicator and not put his family through as much stress as he did.   Other skills that are taught include self-talk and relaxation that can help prevent a PTSD victim from having an episode like the one Huerta experienced. One of the most effective methods of cognitive-behavioral therapy is exposure therapy.  This involves facing the memories of the traumatic event and learning to not fear it.  If this method is effective the patient will eventually be able to return to the place where the traumatic event occurred and not be phased by it.  


Through the support of fellow veterans that also have PTSD and learning how to control and manage thoughts through cognitive-behavioral therapy, the cases of PTSD causing serious life problems for veterans should decrease.  Veterans like Carlos Huerta admit that soldiers are reluctant about admitting they are suffering from PTSD (4).  Due to Huerta not being tested and treated for the disease he spent many years of his life being haunted by frightening memories with no one to help him cope with his problem. Our government needs to act on this epidemic that has plagued our veterans war after war and caused the deterioration of lives and families by installing a routine testing and treating system for the disease.


Bibliography
(1) "What Many Veterans already Know and You Should." Quick Facts about PTSD. Expedition Balance, 2010. Web. 25 Feb. 2013.

(2) "FAQ About Homeless Veterans." National Coalition for Homeless Veterans, n.d. Web. 25 Feb. 2013.

(3) Cohen, Harold. "Psychotherapy Treatment for PTSD | Psych Central." Psych Central.com. PsychCentral, 2006. Web. 25 Feb. 2013.

(4) Huerta, Carlos. "Leaving the Battlefield: Soldier Shares Story of PTSD."WWW.ARMY.MIL. US Army, 25 Apr. 2012. Web. 25 Feb. 2013.

(5) "Post-traumatic Stress Disorder." Mayo Clinic. Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research, 08 Apr. 2011. Web. 25 Feb. 2013.

Understanding the Criminal Mind



Adults typically stereotype American fourteen year olds as being angsty teenagers obsessively playing video games and using social media. Fourteen year old Evan Miller, committed aggravated murder and a judge sentenced him to server a life imprisonment without parole. In recent decisions, such as Miller v. Alabama and Jackson v. Hobbs, scientific research shows that it should play a more significant part during the judicial decision making process than “common sense”. Behavioral research as well as neurobiological inspection methods offer a deeper and more accurate look into the minds of criminals, and hopefully could prevent crime before it happens.

To understand the argument’s basis, we must grasp how the human brain functions. Different brain parts have unique functions. The occipital lobes control visual processing; the temporal lobes memory and hearing; the parietal lobes sensation. The frontal lobes control problem solving and judgment (1). An area behind the forehead, the prefrontal cortex, analyzes and moderates behavior. It works to inhibit behaviors as well as to form strategy and thus plays a very clear-cut rule in potential crime decisions and orchestration.

Young adults and teens’ decisions are considered questionable because their brain chemistry is different from that of fully grown adults. Human brains develop from the back to front, so the prefrontal cortex develops near the last stages of development, around the time an individual reaches the age of 25. (1)This helps to explain why teens knowingly engage in risky or dangerous behaviors. The judgment control part of their brains is not fully developed. Myelin is also an important factor in connecting brain tissues; researchers determined that myelin content increases in the human brain as individuals grow older; thus increasing the effectiveness of information transfer between brain regions as an individual grows. (1) A teenager’s occipital lobe may process a visual sensation but since the teenager may not have an adequate amount of myelin for the prefrontal cortex to interpret that visual as a potentially dangerous situation.

This information provides context when inspecting court cases. In Jackson v. Hobbs, a fourteen year old was sentenced to life-imprisonment without parole for aiding his cousin commit armed robbery and murder. He, his cousin, and an acquaintance premeditated a convenient store robbery. Jackson was initially waiting outside the store but chose to enter. He was not the triggerman nor of legal age. (2) His prefrontal cortex was not developed at the time and it may or may not occur to him that being an accomplice to an armed robbery was a poor decision, but based on whatever was going on in his prefrontal cortex at the time, he decided to follow through with it. The judicial system is well aware of the fact that teenagers and adolescents are not as mature as adults, and this is so widely accepted that it is pretty much common sense. Thus, a provision in foreign and international law prohibits the use of capital punishment on juveniles, but as Charles Stimson and Jonathan Levy write in “The Mysterious Disappearance of International Law Arguments from Juvenile Sentencing in Miller v. Alabama” this law was conspicuously absent in the case of Miller v. Alabama, and Evan Miller was given a life sentence without parole. Had the jury taken into consideration the developmental implications of Miller’s or Jackson’s mind, perhaps the verdicts would be different.

There is an interesting question that reveals itself when looking through all of these criminal cases. Is the criminal mind different from that of a non-criminal? If the decisions we make are controlled by our prefrontal cortex and criminals choose to make bad decisions couldn’t one logically conclude that the criminal prefrontal cortex is different from the non-criminal prefrontal cortex? A study comparing people with antisocial personality disorder to people without antisocial personality disorder indicated that sufferers have a significantly smaller frontal lobe. (4) Clara Moskowitz for LiveScience writes “Those with the disorder "typically have no regard for right and wrong. They may often violate the law and the rights of others, according to the Mayo Clinic.”

Another study conducted comparing psychopaths (people with severe cases of antisocial personality disorder) to non-psychopaths and results show that psychopaths have relatively deformed amygdalas and thinner cortexes. The amygdala is responsible for human emotion (4). Their jaded sense of decision making can be attributed to a thinner cortex while their lack of empathy and guilt can be attributed to the deformed amygdalas. Moskowitz also describes a pavlovian shock test administered to children where a stimulus signaled a punishment. After long-term observational studies, it showed that criminals displayed an abnormal absence of fear to the test as children (4). This study brings up an exciting possibility- would it be possible to determine beforehand which children would end up as criminals based on childhood tests? The most ideal situation would be that every child is put through psychological testing and those that pose a potential threat are then monitored and/or prevented from engaging in detrimental behaviors. This would bring about the need for a moral or ethical ruling to determine how far we can take this “monitoring children” but if it reduced the crime rate many would agree that it would be worth it. If Kuntrell Jackson and Evan Miller had been studied earlier in their childhood, scientists could have found potential flags that would suggest that these individuals would be predisposed to committing the crimes they did.

There has already been a movement to give courtroom judges a more in-depth understanding behind the science that is used to incriminate or exonerate convicted criminals- DNA analysis. The idea behind this is relatively straightforward- that judges will be able to make fair decisions if they have some background knowledge of the process used to gather evidence. Cornelia Dean writes “The justices may also consider that when scientists confront a problem, they collect all the information they can about it and then draw conclusions.

Lawyers work in reverse. They know their desired outcome at the outset, so they gather arguments to support it. While it would be unethical for scientists reporting on their work to omit findings that don’t fit their hypotheses, lawyers are under no compunction to introduce evidence that hurts their cases; that’s the other side’s job.” (5) This offers reason to trust science over logical arguments. Lawyers are paid to win, rather than find the truth, because lawyers are hired by either the defendant or plaintiff while scientists are usually working at crime scenes and have no vested interest in the outcome of a case one way or another.


A defendant’s story can be phrased to paint a particular picture in the jury’s minds while the evidence presented by science cannot; hard data and facts are not up for interpretation. With a universally accepted set of guidelines that dictate the statistical significance of scientific findings, science would present evidence that would be guaranteed to offer the most comprehensive insight into a criminal case or a criminal’s mind. The use of science as a tool in forensics is not new. The use of science to explain motives and behaviors of criminals is a new application of an existing technology; and one which has credibility seeing as it has provided conclusive results on the matter of criminal psychology. Through the use of this science, we will be able to better understand the criminal mind, and hopefully, prevent crime to some extent.

 

Works Cited:

 



(5) Dean, Cornelia. "COMMENTARY; When Questions of Science Come to a Courtroom, Truth Has Many Faces." The New York Times. The New York Times, 05 Dec. 2006. Web. 17 Feb. 2013.

(4) Moskowitz, Clara. "Criminal Minds Are Different From Yours, Brain Scans Reveal." LiveScience.com. N.p., 4 Mar. 2011. Web. 16 Feb. 2013.

(2) Change, Angela, and Tian Wang. "Jackson v. Hobbs (10-9647)." LII. Cornell, 20 Mar. 2012. Web. 04 Feb. 2013.

(1) "Maturation of the Prefrontal Cortex." Maturation of the Prefrontal Cortex. US Department of Health and Human Affairs, n.d. Web. 16 Feb. 2013.

(3) Stimson, Charles, and Johnathan Levy. "The Mysterious Disappearance of International Law Arguments from Juvenile Sentencing in Miller v. Alabama" The Heritage Foundation. N.p., 22 Aug. 2012. Web. 04 Feb. 2013.