Stephen Stanko, a diagnosed psychopath, was executed for a series of heinous crimes, including murder and sexual assault. His defense aimed to leverage neuroscience to argue diminished responsibility. However, the jury rejected this, and the case underscores ongoing debates about the reliability of neuroscience in court. Stanko's charm and intelligence contrasted sharply with his criminal actions, illustrating the complexity of assessing culpability when mental disorders are involved. This case continues to provoke discussions about the intersection of psychology, neuroscience, and legal responsibility today.
In my undergraduate course, Dangerous Minds, I'd use the case of Stephen Stanko to demonstrate problems with neuroscience experts in court: Brain scans aren't definitive.
When Stanko was caught a few days later, he'd already seduced another woman with a false story. He'd even accompanied her to church.
Collection
[
|
...
]