The complexity and magnificence of the human brain are something that has impulsed grand desire for scholars to understand this arsenal of neurons and bunched up human flesh; its role in the human body and the millions of ways in which it functions has created a cloud of curiosity in the minds of many. There has been a great controversy for years debating whether a mentally ill person who has committed a crime should be prosecuted to the same extent as a person who willingly committed similar actions. Many people disagree with this view because they lack knowledge in the ways the brain affects an individual’s actions, and are furthermore stuck on their conservative views; they don’t understand that extraordinary advancement in neuroscience have allowed us to see the way the brain affects our will. Are neuroscience and justice two subjects that should be applied in the same category? …show more content…
In the story, From The Brain on Trial, David Eagleman explains that the legal system is operating in ignorance about what is known about neurobiology. Eagleman describes that not all human brains are equal, so they should not be prosecuted the same. He believes that groundbreaking sciences that analyze the brain have changed the understanding of discretion in criminal acts. Eagleman states that criminal activity is firmly fixed inside our brains. Depending on how the human brain is wired determines how someone will act. He argues that there is no such thing as “free will,” so to prosecute the mentally-ill without looking from their brain's point of view is