Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Crime Science Technology

Could Electrically Stimulating Criminals' Brains Prevent Crime? (newatlas.com) 218

Posted by BeauHD from the factory-reset dept.
future guy shares a report from New Atlas: A new study by a team of international researchers from the University of Pennsylvania and Nanyang Technological University suggests that electrically stimulating the prefrontal cortex can reduce the desire to carry out violent antisocial acts by over 50 percent. The research, while undeniably compelling, raises a whole host of confronting ethical questions, not just over the feasibility of actually bringing this technology into our legal system, but whether we should?

The intriguing experiment took 81 healthy adults and split them into two groups. One group received transcranial direct-current stimulation (tDCS) on the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex for 20 minutes, while the other placebo group received just 30 seconds of current and then nothing for the remaining 19 minutes. Following the electrical stimulation all the participants were presented with two vignettes and asked to rate, from 0 to 10, how likely they would be to behave as the protagonist in the stories. One hypothetical scenario outlined a physical assault, while the other was about sexual assault. The results were fascinating, with participants receiving the tDCS reporting they would be between 47 and 70 percent less likely to carry out the violent acts compared to the blind placebo control.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Could Electrically Stimulating Criminals' Brains Prevent Crime? More

Could Electrically Stimulating Criminals' Brains Prevent Crime?

Comments Filter:

  • A clockwork orange... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by berchca ( 414155 ) on Tuesday July 03, 2018 @08:03AM (#56885520) Homepage

    I mean...?

  • Not sure how they can prove that the result is not that a 30-second shock and 19 mins of boredom didn't cause an uptick in criminal tendencies...

    • Not having RTFA yet, my first thought was ..how do you give a placebo shock?
  • The higher the current the peaceful of the subjects. Over a certain range efectivity is 100%

    • The higher the current the peaceful of the subjects. Over a certain range efectivity is 100%

      The true irony here is that the folks giving the shocks were actually the subjects of the test.

      A la Stanley Milgram: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

      Hey, college sophomores . . . y'all got some time to help out in a psychological experiment and fry up some violent criminals . . . ?"

  • Wireheads? (Score:3)

    by jfdavis668 ( 1414919 ) on Tuesday July 03, 2018 @08:06AM (#56885532)
    In a number of Larry Niven sci-fi novels, there are people addicted to brain stimulation, known as "wireheads".

    • I especially remember the story with Gil "Long Arm of the Law" Hamilton, and the wirehead that never bothered to leave his chair to eat, so he starved to death with a stupid grin on his face. That may well be a cautionary tale.

      • I recall that. It turned out that it was a murder; the murderer intentionally set the wire at an intensity well above safety limits and also spliced the power cord short. All the victim had to do to get to something to eat was unplug the wire (there was food right in the next room)--but he couldn't do it.

  • Of course, it's already been done (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 03, 2018 @08:06AM (#56885534)

    It's called "electric chair". Pump enough watts into the brain and they don't commit crimes anymore. Works like a charm

  • Absolutely (Score:2, Insightful)

    by GeekWithAKnife ( 2717871 )

    You just need to have 100% accuracy in detecting that they are indeed criminals and sufficiently strong current.

    No more re-offending

    • The most effective way to implement that is to make everything a crime. considering the incarceration rate in the US that approach has been mostly implemented.

  • As I recall, we tried the electroshock therapy thing a long time ago.

    It worked, if you defined "worked" to include "turned them into vegetables". Somehow, I doubt that that's what TFA had in mind though....

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Megol ( 3135005 )

      What? ECT is still widely used all over the world and it never turns anybody "into vegetables". Stop spreading bullshit please!

    • >Somehow, I doubt that that's what TFA had in mind
      are you sure the capital class doesn't want to turn everybody else into obedient slaves?

    • As I recall, we tried the electroshock therapy thing a long time ago.

      It worked, if you defined "worked" to include "turned them into vegetables". Somehow, I doubt that that's what TFA had in mind though....

      ECT (electro-convulsive therapy) is used in the 21st century still, for severe depression that does not respond to therapy or medication.

      It can and frequently does have side effect of some degree of memory impairment (not "turn into vegetable") ... but that definitely is a better outcome than killing yourself.

  • The intriguing experiment took 81 healthy adults and split them into two groups.

    The sample is too small and too biased. The right way to test is to take ALL the inmates convicted of violent crime in jail. Divide them into two groups, and give them transcranial direct-current stimulation (tDCS) . Then watch their behavior. Once you prove definitively this things helps make peaceful society, we can extend this to the general population.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by orlanz ( 882574 )

      I am sure there is a lot of details missing in the article and more so in the post and the conclusion is probably exaggerated from what the scientists concluded (Seems interesting to do further testing.).

      The test was far too simple and sample far too small; almost useless in application to any general population group. The factors surrounding crime isn't this simple. The brain isn't this simple. Psychologically testing, addressing the root cause, and rehabilitation should be the direction we should choos

      • It's not, see the journal abstract. http://www.jneurosci.org/conte... [jneurosci.org]

        The OP is 100% correct. Taking "normal" people, people who have not committed violent acts, DOES NOT tell you this procedure would stop someone who WOULD commit violent acts. Obviously there's a difference between someone who commits a violent act and someone who doesn't.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by sjames ( 1099 )

        Of course, based on the "success" rate, prison isn't effective either.

        My suspicion if the tDCS proves out is that we'll have tough on crime politicians trying to either ban it or insisting on prison as well.

        • My suspicion if the tDCS proves out is that we'll have tough on crime politicians trying to either ban it or insisting on prison as well.

          It makes sense for use on parolees, or as a condition of probation (for suspended sentences on 1st-time or minor offenses).

          Part of the purpose of prison is as a deterrent/punishment, so I don't see it being replaced anytime soon.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by sjames ( 1099 )

            If the tDCS actually makes people not re-offend, then the problem is solved. At that point, prison is like curing the infection and then amputating anyway to deter others who might otherwise get an infection.

            Thank you for proving my point.

        • Prison isn't successful at reforming people, but it does an excellent job at removing someone from society.

          For violent criminals, this is absolutely justified IMHO. For non-violent criminals, I'm not as sold on it.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by sjames ( 1099 )

            If this simple treatment is actually effective, none of the people in prison will be violent anymore.

            Kinda like if you cure the infection, amputation is no longer medically warranted.

            • That would be one of those "once in a lifetime" kind of moments. A cure for criminal violence would be revolutionary.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by sjames ( 1099 )

                That is what is claimed. A reduction in violent thought.

                Stimulating more activity in the part of the brain that plans the future and evaluates consequences of actions. That is, If I rob the bank I might get shot or arrested. People with damage in that area tend to be violent, impulsive, and overly emotional.

                It's one thing to be skeptical of it's efficacy, but even here I see people unwilling or unable to to let go of punitive "justice" even if it works as advertised.

    • The intriguing experiment took 81 healthy adults and split them into two groups.

      I hope they labeled the groups 'positive' and 'negative'.

      • Re:Stupid way to test this. (Score:5, Funny)

        by thegreatbob ( 693104 ) on Tuesday July 03, 2018 @09:27AM (#56886068) Journal
        I should hope we can rectify this discrepancy with minimal resistance.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Memnos ( 937795 )

          I see potential in this approach, and I will meditate on a solution. Ohmmmm..

          • I see potential in this approach, and I will meditate on a solution. Ohmmmm..

            Perhaps it should be phased in slowly?

            I think the connection between Theory and Practice is so weak, that it is creating reactance that would add to the impedance slowing its introduction.

            Perhaps it should be field tested, some some people might consider the idea too shocking to support.

            The whole thing might be a transitory flash in the pan, but it might spark people into thinking of better techniques.

            Using it might reduce the instance of terminal cases, by prevent some cases of Assault and Battery?

    • The sample is too small and too biased.

      How exactly is the sample biased? Generally speaking, if you're trying to prove an effect is real then you use a normal population; targeting specific populations happens later. The sample size is fine, as generally you can get significant results with 50-100 participants.

      Once you prove the effect, you can run more specific experiments later. E.g., a test on criminals to demonstrate whether the treatment is effective on that particular population.

      One notable limitation of this study is that there is no data

      • The sample is biased because they had crappy controls.

        • They had significantly more women than men in the overall sample (45 vs 36).
        • The control group ended up evenly split (21 vs 21) while the treatment group was ridiculously imbalanced (24 vs 15).
        • One of the two tests involved the desire to rape
        • The biggest decrease involved the desire to rape

        So, a group that is 62% female is less likely than a group that is 50% female to want to rape someone when asked a second time. There doesn't seem to have been an attempt

    • First you have to show it does something in people.

      Then you can start to figure out how many people can be affected by it.

      Then you can figure out if it works in the population of people you would like it to affect.

      You are complaining that they did not immediately leap to the last step. We have a history of doing that with prisoners, and its not a good history.

  • I'm pretty sure we established in the 40's and 50's an ice pick in that region would do the same thing.
    • Nah this actually stimulates the region rather than causing damage. We've been doing similar in other regions in both unsanctioned and sanctioned experiments to increase performance in battle and stuff like that for years. It makes sense given that the prefrontal cortex is basically what we use for long-term planning and conscious activities like that. We've known for a while that stress response is to shut this down so that you can deal with unrestrained effectiveness with whatever serious shit you're im
  • This is assuming that there is a chemical imbalance in the brain and I honestly think it is barking up the wrong tree. Criminality and the reasons people commit crimes are far more complex. Also American society has so many ways to get tripped up by the system that the average person actually commits 3 felonies a day without really knowing that they've done so and these are basically law abiding people. Harry Silvergate published a book on his study about this. The title of the book is Three Felonies A Day:

    • This is assuming that there is a chemical imbalance in the brain

      Wrong. They did this on healthy people to see if it worked.

      Criminality and the reasons people commit crimes are far more complex

      True, but irrelevant.

      Even complex decisions can be changed by simple methods. Increasing the perceived "wrongness" of a violent act won't stop all violence, but it will stop some. If this is effective, then it makes sense to use it---even if cannot be 100% effective due to the underlying complexities.

      Ultimately, a motivated decision is made under the influence of many competing desires. If we can manipulate each of those subordinate desires, we can

  • A problem in this report is that electrocuting anyone is likely to suppress their desire to do Anything. Good or bad. So while interesting subject the test is hardly scientific without a factor that shows their activity level, and probably more specifically with other people.
    I bet one would find them reaching less for human interaction, other than maybe seeking safety.

  • Do a study where they electrically "stimulate" their reproductive organs. I'm curious what the results would be in that case.

  • I mean, didn't we do this to criminals ( and "insane" ) back in the early 1900s?

    • That was the first thing I thought of also, but our knowledge of the brain is a lot better now than it was in the early 1900s. This would be a lot more targeted electricity. (Not saying that I'm convinced that it works, just that it's a possibility.) It would be like saying that you once used a sledgehammer to hang a picture frame and got a hole in it therefore nobody with a small hammer could hang a photo on a wall.

  • The problem is really that there's some socially accepted group think that says people have 'criminal urges' they cannot control. Rather than cognitive human beings that have made personal choices based on a lifetime of experiences.

    It's almost as though society says 'these people are criminals because they are broken', rather than taking personal responsibility and understanding society puts a huge amount of emphasis on conflicting standards of behavior, conduct and goal setting.

    tl;dr
    People are inherently g

    • People are inherently good, there's only so much bullshit a person can take.

      You haven't spent much time around children, have you? They'll punch each other in the face for a snack or a toy if you don't teach them otherwise. THAT is nature, and why nurture is so important. Hell, babies prefer to play with babies of the same color as them. We're born violent racists, and we have to be taught civility.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Hylandr ( 813770 )

        Hell, babies prefer to play with babies of the same color as them. We're born violent racists, and we have to be taught civility.

        Lol. You picked the wrong parent.

        I have 8 children and I know for a fact you're full of diaper stuffing.

        When I typed " made personal choices based on a lifetime of experiences." I am including parenting in the lifetime of experiences. Bad parents will indeed raise bad people. There's a lot to be said for nature vs nurture, but given the right set of parents and opportunities people can, and do, make good choices. As evidenced by the fact; there are far more people out of jail than in.

        • As evidenced by the fact; there are far more people out of jail than in.

          Wow, you truly are a spectacular idiot. That's not how it works at all. No wonder you're in such denial about children's behavior. I bet you think your little snowflakes are total angels while you're raising them to be complete shitlords.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Hylandr ( 813770 )

            Don't worry, you don't have any competition being a shitlord.

          • Do you write a first draft of your shitposts and then revise it before submitting? Or do you just go hog wild with your retarded shit?

            I'd like to know your process. I want to understand.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • - Over half the subjects were woman ( They don't tend to carry out violent attacks).

    - The study studies intent, not action ( Maybe females intend violent actions but don't actually carry them out which would skew the real life applications).

    - Morally wrongful is a social construct which could mean the experiment actually reinforces existing social constructs (What about in a time of war when the construct is that the enemy are monsters, or gay people are evil, African Americans are thugs, and Arabs are

    • Not just that - the group that received treatment had a 62%/38% split between women and men (24/15), while the control group was balanced 50%/50% (21/21).

      This was not a great study.

  • While by no means an expert, I have done a little bit of work with folks doing research with tCDS as a learning/awareness enhancement technique so I'd just like to like to correct some misconceptions I see being thrown around here. All the following should also be taken with the caveat that I personally find applying any kind of psychoactive therapy to an unwilling subject or someone whose agency has been been restricted and is unable to freely give consent (e.g. prisoners) reprehensible.

    • tCDS is not ECT -

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by flink ( 18449 )

      Sorry, replace tCDS with tDCS above - I have dyslexia when I type that acronym for some reason.

  • Comment removed (Score:3)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday July 03, 2018 @09:52AM (#56886202)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • My father would tell a story about growing up in the 1930â(TM)s in a poor coal town when the electric chair was popular as a means of execution.

    Whenever the switch was thrown, lights in the entire town dimmed. Over time, the frequency of these dimming reduced and not because of improved infrastructure.

    So, yeah, large doses of electrical stimulation to the brains of offenders can reduce crime rates.

  • proper education, clean, lead free drinking water and decent paying jobs stops crime. The number of criminally insane people is minuscule. Crap like this is just an excuse not to do the hard work of solving root causes.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • I think it was called "The Green Mile".

  • ... let's embed some electricity in opioids and stuff.

    Many crimes are drug-related, and if that works, we can migrate that shit to meth, pot, Facebook, and other mind-altering substances.

  • Given that it is a proven fact that job insecurity and lack of a job directly relates to family violence, what would be the result of offering people JOBS that paid enough to live on (as opposed to ones that required you to work two or three jobs, 18 or more hours a day, just to get by)?

    And libertarian idiots, how can you afford bootstraps, when the multinationals undercut your businesses and drive you under (can you say Walmart)?

  • How long until this becomes something that is court ordered..?

  • I can't download the full PDF of the study, but there are at least 2 things missing from the description in the news.

    First, their results are based on a verbal report of what a person says he/she would do in a situation. This is completely different from what a person might actually do in real life.

    Second, they haven't shown that the effect is specific to violent intent. Maybe the brain stimulation also reduces their (reported) desire to do anything active, like exercise, or eat cake, or go scuba diving. Th

    • Yeah, it's worse than that - the "treatment" group stated that they were less likely to do the bad/aggressive things, but a second part of the test was to stick pins into virtual dolls that represented friends of theirs. The treatment group was more likely to actually stick pins into proxies for their friends.

  • There's no proof that this will make any lasting changes. It could be something like the effects of meditation - good for max. a couple of hours, but as soon as the thought patterns go back to their old ways the jig is up. Is the proposal that potential criminals would need to wear electrode headbands 24/7?

    I recommend reading "The Psychopath Test" by Jon Ronson (author of "The Men Who Stare at Goats", among others). There was a lot of success in the 60s and 70s(? if I recall correctly) with using psyched

  • I wouldn't commit too many crimes either if someone electrocuted me!

  • Only if (Score:2)

    by Chas ( 5144 )

    You crank the power up high enough.

    "God! He smells like a pig roast! His entire head caught fire!"
    "But he won't commit any more crimes now!"
    "Why not just shoot him!"
    "Because that would be inhumane..."

Slashdot Top Deals

"The vast majority of successful major crimes against property are perpetrated by individuals abusing positions of trust." -- Lawrence Dalzell

Close