Professor calls for more focus on brain impairment in suspects
In her inaugural lecture on 10 June, Maaike Kempkes, Professor by Special Appointment Enhancing Neuroscientific Knowledge, will call for more attention to be paid to brain impairment in suspects. A large number of suspects have non-congenital brain impairment, which could go some way to explaining their criminal behaviour.
Around thirty per cent of young offenders have non-congenital brain impairment, and this number is even greater in adults. This is three times more than in the entire Dutch population. Why do these offenders more often have brain impairment? Kempes: ‘One of the reasons is that many people who are convicted of crimes exhibit risky behaviour that is often exacerbated by the use of drink and drugs.’ This means that they are more likely at some point in their life to suffer some form of head trauma, as a result of a fight or a fall. The trauma is generally serious, involving loss of consciousness. Drug and drink use itself may also be associated with brain damage and neurocognitive impairment.
Treatment and the risk of recurrence
Research has shown that behavioural specialists do not always take into account non-congenital brain impairment when they provide advice in court about the behaviour of a suspect, their possible treatment and the risk of recurrence. And that while the judge takes their advice into account in determining the verdict. A defendant could be declared less culpable, for example. Kempes believes good advice is also important to reduce the chance of a recurrence of the criminal behaviour. There are particular treatments that are not effective with people suffering brain impairment because they have difficulty processing information, as well as problems with memory, concentration and impulse regulation.
Blame the brain
Together with other researchers, Kempes, who also works for the Netherlands Institute for Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology, is developing a list and decision tree to help behavioural specialists better recognise non-congenital brain impairment and its consequences. ‘First, they need to ask whether someone has ever suffered head trauma, and they should also be alert to signs of brain impairment, such as difficulty processing information. If these signs are apparent, neuropsychological tests should be carried out to see whether the person’s behaviour really is compromised.’
Some tests can be done by behavioural scientists themselves. For more specialised testing, such as a brain scan and extensive neuropsychological analysis, they can enlist the help of Het Neuroloket of the Dutch Institute of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology.
Kempes does warn that a brain scan alone is not sufficient to directly link brain activity to specific behaviour. Some people have the same brain abnormality as defendants but exhibit no criminal behaviour. So defendants cannot brandish a brain scan in court to blame their brain for their actions. Drink and drugs use and personality also play a role.
Neurobiological knowledge in practice
Kempes wants to encourage forensic behavioural specialists to already include neurobiological knowledge in forensic diagnostics, and to make use of the Neuroportal where necessary. ‘Insights from neurobiology can help behavioural specialists give better advice on liability and the likelihood of the recurrence of criminal behaviour. This can in turn lead to more effective treatments and a reduction in criminal recidivism among offenders with non-congenital brain impairment.’
Maaike Kempes will deliver her inaugural lecture ‘Young brains in criminal law’ on Monday 10 June. In her lecture she will talk about what we can do in practice with all the knowledge gained from neurobiology. Is knowledge about the link between the brain and behaviour useful if we want to understand criminal behaviour of young offenders
Text: Dagmar Aarts