An Analysis of Stephen J. Morse’s “Scientific Challenges to Criminal Responsibility”: How Recent Neuroscience Research is Challenging Traditional Legal Ideas About Whether People Should Be Held Responsible for Their Actions Hannah Liscomb Philosophy 330 – Dr. Laura Weed
Ever since law was invented to manage human behavior, traditional ideas of responsibility to obey the law and culpability to punishment if one disobeys the law have prevailed. Everyone who has a basic understanding of law knows that these traditional ideas of responsibility and culpability are that everyone has a responsibility to obey the law and if they do not, they are subject to punishment. However, recent discoveries in neuroscience and genetics have dramatically complicated, challenged, and questioned these traditional ideas about responsibility to obey the law and punishment as a result of criminal activity. The profound questions that research in neuroscience and genetics have provoked are, “Are people morally responsible for their actions like we think they are or are everyone's actions completely determined by brain chemistry and genetics?” and “If people can't help engaging in criminal behavior because their actions boil down to their brain chemistry and genetics, can they be held legally responsible for actions they hypothetically have no control over?” In his work, “Scientific Challenges to Criminal Responsibility,” Stephen J. Morse gives an articulate, in-depth explanation as to why he believes traditional legal ideas about responsibility for human actions and why he does not believe recent scientific research that challenges conventional ideas about responsibility. Though he is articulate and thorough in his writing, there are some aspects of his arguments that I dispute and take issue with. I will cover each general argument he includes in his piece and explain why I reject some of the ideas he proposes.
28
The Journal of Undergraduate Research
