We’ve been tracking the stories and research (and products for sale) in the area of neurolaw for quite a while now. Neurolaw theory (more popularly described as “my brain made me do it”) is poised to be used more and more frequently in the courtroom. And it’s getting more attention in the mainstream media. Recently NPR broadcast a series on researchers working in the neurolaw area.

They discuss the differences in the brain structures and reactivity in the brain of the psychopath. Special attention is given to the amygdala and limbic system which are under-reactive in psychopaths. The researchers say that perhaps psychopaths should be treated as those with low intellectual function (and not given the death penalty) since they have the emotional IQs of a five year old. They simply do not have the capacity to make the right choices in morally charged situations. Why, say the researchers, should we execute someone who was born with a brain abnormality? They certainly did not ask to be born that way!

Detractors say that if you understand the differences between right and wrong (which psychopaths say they do) and yet rape and kill—you are responsible. The example of the Brian Dugan case is used in the NPR series but jurors found him guilty. As in, his brain did NOT make him do it.

However, the NPR series also examines the case of Bradley Waldroup which was described as a “why done it” rather than a “who done it” case. Waldroup committed a vicious murder—hacking the best friend of his estranged wife to death and then chasing his wife with a machete and cutting her numerous times. Prior to the assault and murder, Waldroup had been drinking and reading his Bible. Waldroup never denied the murder—in fact, he freely admitted he had done it.

But his attorneys presented information on a particular variant of the MAO-A gene (also known as the warrior gene because it has been associated with violence) and said Waldroup had the high-risk version of the gene. Prosecutors said Waldroup was simply “drunk and mad” and acted violently. “After 11 hours of deliberation, the jury convicted Waldroup of voluntary manslaughter — not murder — and attempted second-degree murder.”

Jurors say the brain evidence was “only part of” their deliberation and that they believed Waldroup had simply “snapped” and it was a case of “nature versus nurture”. Waldroup’s defense attorney, Wylie Richardson,  said of the successful neurolaw defense: “I would use it again” under the right circumstances. “It seemed to work in this case.”

We’ve been waiting for this defense to work with a jury.  This defense seems to fly into the face of significant Daubert challenges, but evidently it survived the process in Chattanooga.  And if you read about the testimony, however strange it may seem to you on first blush you will see there is a good deal of hard science involved. Let’s see what happens next!

Related posts:

1. You are naked in public! Did your brain make you do it?
2. On brains, brain damage, pedophilia and other things we don’t like
3. Neurolaw Update: Who’s in charge here—me or my brain?
4. Your brain is a liar: It will find what it wants before it even starts looking
5. Confused about brain scans? Welcome to the club!

1. Aaron Jacklin says:

   July 14, 2010 at 3:10 PM

   RT @yosie23 And the #jury says: “His brain really DID make him do it!” http://bit.ly/cfaYnT Interesting post #law: And the #jury says:…
2. Yosie Saint-Cyr says:

   July 14, 2010 at 3:07 PM

   And the #jury says: “His brain really DID make him do it!” http://bit.ly/cfaYnT Interesting post #law