Neuroplasticity Crime

Neuroplasticity; can we grow out of crime?

Neuro-plasticity is the process by which the brain reorganizes itself by forming new connections. According to Stephanie Liou; “it allows the neurons in the brain to compensate for injury and adjust their activity in response to new situations or changes in their environment.” When looking at research featuring neuroplasticity reorganisation we often think of post brain injury incidents, however this is not always the case. Conditions in our environment, such as social interactions, challenging experiences and even fresh air can play a crucial role in brain cell survival and the formation of connections. Because the brain constantly changes in response to environmental conditions; it is safe enough
to say that even teenage offenders can alter the way their brain is shaped. This process is not a conscious process, but a subconscious one.

In this case one can argue that, yes new connections can form at an amazing speed, but in order to reconnect, the neurons need to be stimulated through activity. As mentioned the process is unconscious, however neurogenesis will not occur spontaneously. The brain has to be stimulated in a positive way; subject needs to be presented to a supportive and positive environment. Additionally, “brain workouts” help the brain reorganize connections more quickly and stimulate reorganization. Even simple brain exercises such as presenting oneself with challenging intellectual environments, interacting in social situations, or getting involved in physical activities will boost the general growth of connections.

Thus, an option for adolescent criminals, would be to be exposed to the right environment; a sort of rehab.
Instead of being placed into a Juvenile cell, surrounded by like-minded individuals and a delinquent environment, adolescents should go through a rehabilitation system within the society. These may include individual or group therapy (CBT, DBT, BAT, GBAT, SST, etc.), integrating society through voluntary works, community service and a regular psychiatric follow up. Of course, to be effective individuals must agree to cooperate as forcing such individual could result in worse consequences. Additionally, these interventions are expensive and risky as they depend on individual differences and the offence of the crime.

(Backup evidence that the brain can change- Neuroplasticity: changes in grey matter induced by training; Draganski et al., 2004; Rosenzweig and Bennet, 1972; Gaser and Schlaug 2003).

(Before the U.S. Supreme Court banned Juvenile death
penalty)
Taking into account the substantial evidence in neuro-plasticity, the issue remains whether teenagers who commit capital offences be judged the same way as adults. In 2004, medical and mental health organizations released literature to support the argument that adolescent brains have not reached their full adult potential. Psychologist, Laurence Sternberg of the APA says, “capacities relevant to criminal responsibility are still developing when you’re 16 or 17 years old”. Physician David Fassler, spokesperson for the APA and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, added that these findings “do not excuse violent criminal behavior, but it’s an important factor for courts to consider” when welding a punishment “as extremist and irreversible as death”. Lawyer Stephen Harper, additionally believes that “these standards mark the progress of a civilized society."

In contrast, Beatriz Luna, of the University of Pittsburg, observed how the adult and adolescent brain differs in working functions.
She found that 14-year-old plus adolescents performed just as well on adult tasks as did adults, however they relied on different functions of the brain. Adolescents rely mainly on the frontal lobe’s prefrontal cortex, whereas adults exhibit a more complex response. She thus concluded that “adolescents cannot be viewed at the same level as adults”.

The research collected shows evidence for neurogenesis and the anatomy of the brain to have influential effect on adolescent criminal cases, however many scientists hesitate to weigh in on the legal debate. Neuroscientist from UCLA, Elizabeth Sowell says that too little data exists to connect behavior to brain structure, and imagining is far from being diagnostic: “we couldn’t do a scan on a kid and decide if they should be tried as an
adult”.