For these reasons, when science holds the magnifying glass to evil, it is looking at the same set of motives that apply to bad actions in general: actions motivated by the usual suspects of jealousy, greed, lust, revenge, hatred, and the desire to avoid public humiliation. There will be no key that opens all doors to the mystery of evil: no "evil gene," no specific type of parental brutality that underlies all cases we label evil and that can be understood as a causative factor guaranteed to produce evil. Instead, we will see only a complex menu of "risk factors": a vegetable soup, if you will, of factors from which, if the soup simmers long enough, and if some of the special ingredients we listed above are mixed in, evil may eventually rise to the surface. There will, in addition, be many crimes we designate as evil but where the deciding factor was accidental. For example, a fifteen-year-old girl was recently killed in New York by a stray bullet fired by a drug dealer aiming at a rival dealer. Because the girl happened to be pregnant, the media understandably dealt with this crime much more harshly. In a like vein, a serial killer caught after the fourth murder may be cut from the same biological cloth as another who has killed dozens, but "evil" will be applied more readily to the latter, because he has wreaked so much more damage and tragedy.
Some of the stories from the previous chapters have already made clear what is crucial to our discussion of scientific aspects-that it is not so much this or that single factor but instead a pathway, peculiar to each person, leading from before birth to the moment of the evil action. The risk factors may be very few in number, though multiple factors are the norm, with the "menu" varying from one person to the next. And we must always keep in mind that there still remain many "x's"-many unknowns-in the algebra of evil. One of the most important of these is the number of people who have just as many negative factors as a multiple murderer or a serial killer, but who have led an innocent life as a bank clerk, a nurse, an engineer, a dressmaker-and who have never harmed anyone. Gary Gilmore (mentioned briefly in chapter 7), for example, was a violent, sadistic man who tyrannized his girlfriends and ultimately shot a gas station attendant to death for the $24 that was in the cash register. Gary, the "evil" brother in his family, was executed in Utah by firing squad and was then immortalized (if that is the right word) by Norman Mailer in his book The Executioner's Song.16 Gary had three brothers. All four were beaten and abused by their alcoholic father, but Gary got the worst of it, because he was the rebellious one (owing to genetic influences, I suspect) and thus drew more punishment from his father. Gary's rebelliousness is consistent with what would also be called childhood conduct disorder, which is known to have a strong hereditary component and to be closely linked with future antisocial behavior.17
The other three brothers were never in trouble. One of them, Mikal Gilmore, became a distinguished writer. Mikal wrote a book about his brother-a much better (and mercifully shorter) one than Mailer's, in my opinion.18 So right there is one person among millions-and a blood relative, to boot-who suffered parental brutality and did not end up becoming a violent criminal.
As we survey the findings from research into human violence, mental illness, personality aberrations, and the like, we will find that the material will be pertinent to our discussion of evil as well. We just need to keep in mind that, although brain and background among murderers may be very similar, the evil/not evil distinction will usually depend on the unpredictable nuances mentioned above: Who was the victim? and What was done to the victim?
SOME BASIC BRAIN MECHANISMS
People who do acts of violence (or who subject others to physical or emotional suffering of a sort that falls short of violence) have presumably made a choice. They could have acted otherwise. Even among those whose acts were impulsive, made too abruptly to have been preceded by anything much in the way of conscious thought, there was a life history that led up to the hurtful or evil event. Had they often been exposed to violence? Had they been taught (as had the young persons Lonnie Athens wrote about) that lashing out quickly was the right way to handle stressful encounters? Had they so meager a repertoire of responses that they simply behaved in a knee-jerk fashion to whatever bothered them? As far as the brain is concerned, their action still can be understood as the final pathway-the final "solution," no matter how dreadful and inappropriate-of a complex process going on in the relevant centers within the brain.
Before we look at the anatomy of the brain itself, it will be useful to consider an analogy from a different world: that of the automobile. The human brain, with its hundred billion neurons and quadrillion (a million billion) interconnections, has rightly been called the most complex thing in the known universe.19 The car is much simpler. There are, to be sure, a lot of parts and pieces under the hood, but once the car is turned on, it responds basically to what we do with the accelerator, and what we do with the brake pedal. The steering wheel guides us to our destination. Think of the accelerator (along with the steering wheel) as the representatives of our wishes, desires, preferences, impulses, or to use a psychological word, our drives (driving and "drives" make a good comparison here). The brakes can be compared to the brain mechanisms we summon (only a few of which will ever be fully conscious) to inhibit our drives.
Translating this imagery back into the workings of the brain, we find that there are areas of the brain that deal with our basic drives, including our basic emotions. These areas are found primarily in the more primitive brain centers that are attuned to grasping what is good and what is threatening in the environment. These centers also call forth immediate, and what are considered life-saving, reactions: where quick response rather than deliberate, slow reflection is what will save the day. Neuroscientists lump these brain regions and their responses under the heading of "bottom-up" mechanisms, since they are related directly to elemental needs and drives, with little or no modification from the higher centers. The analogy here is to the car's accelerator. The higher centers involve our gray matter, the cerebrum, with its four main areas of lobes-frontal, temporal, parietal, and occipital-on each side. The frontal lobes are much more developed in humans than in other animals. These frontal centers act as if weighing and measuring which of various possible responses to the outside world may be in our best interest and which ones would be bad for us-or even disastrous. These centers are lumped together under the heading of "top-down" mechanisms. They correspond to the car's brake system.
Moving from the simple car analogy to a somewhat more complex analogy involving the brain itself, we can look at how some of the bottom-up mechanisms influence, and may in turn be influenced by, some of the key top-down mechanisms. A useful comparison to the behavior of violent persons is the behavior of the drug addict, particularly, the person addicted to cocaine. Some of the more significant brain regions in the pathway operating in cocaine addicts have been worked out by Dr. Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and her colleagues.20 Four of the important areas are shown in a side ("sagittal") view through the middle of the brain (please refer to color plate 17). These are the amygdala, the nucleus accumbens, the anterior cingulate gyrus, and the orbitofrontal cortex. The first two belong to the bottom-up mechanisms; the last two, to the top-down mechanisms. In the next diagram, these areas are shown in a schematic way (please refer to color plate 18).
The amygdala is a small twin organ (on either side of the middle temporal lobe) that serves a number of functions, such as learning and storing information about emotional memory. Emotional memory is primarily "implicit," or unconscious, in contrast to the function of the nearby hippocampus, involved in storing declarative (conscious) memory.21 Recent research has focused on the processing of fear by the amygdala, though the organ deals with other emotions as well. In general the amygdala weighs the emotional significance of stimuli from the environment. Damage to the amygdala interferes with developing the appropriate conditioning to stimuli that would normally inspire fear.22
The nucleus accumbens is also a twin organ: one at the lower part of each fro
ntal lobe. This region plays an integral role in laughter, pleasure, addiction, and fear. The nucleus accumbens is also the site of action of highly addictive drugs such as cocaine and amphetamine, which, as with most recreational drugs, increases the levels of dopamine (a transmitter chemical associated with pleasure sensation) in this already dopaminesensitive organ.23 A term often associated with the function of this nucleus is salience. What this amounts to is the degree of desirability of the various potential choices we might make in any given situation-in effect, our priorities.
The anterior cingulate is associated with executive functions and has connections with the frontal, temporal, and parietal lobes but also with the amygdala. The anterior cingulate serves, as one of its important functions, the brain's error-prevention system, detecting conflicts and helping to control strategic processes. Putting those processes into action, however, is not the task of the anterior cingulate. Instead, it relays its "suggestions" for the resolution of conflicts to the prefrontal cortex for the actual setting in motion (implementation) of the appropriate behavior. "Appropriate" here does not always mean the most socially adaptive behavior but rather the behavior the brain "decides" is in its best interests at the moment (even if the behavior turns out upon subsequent reflection to have been unwise or dreadful).24 In this sense the anterior cingulate acts as a jury, giving its recommendation to a "higher authority"-one that is capable of actually carrying out the recommendation.
The orbitofrontal cortex, also located in the lower portion of the frontal lobes at the level of the eyes, is part of the prefrontal cortex. The orbitofrontal cortex is involved with thought processes and decision making. As such, this region regulates planning behaviors associated with reward and punishment.25 The portion of the orbitofrontal cortex nearer the brain's midline (the "medial" portion) is occupied particularly with monitoring, learning, and also with memory of the reward value of various incoming messages from other parts of the brain. The lateral portion is involved with the evaluation of punishment warnings, which, if heeded, may lead to changes in behavior.26 Damage to this area of the brain may result in such unwanted behaviors as excessive swearing, hypersexuality, poor social interaction, compulsive gambling, abuse of alcohol and drugs, and an impaired ability to tune in correctly to the emotions of other people (that is, lowered empathy).
THE FOUR REGIONS AND THE COCAINE ADDICT
In a lecture given by Dr. Nora Volkow, she outlined how these four regions might interact in the case of a cocaine addict, using imagery of the traffic lights that drivers are supposed to obey.27 In the scenario typical of the addict, the bottom-up regions show a strong drive to use cocaine. The fear that the amygdala might ordinarily register in relation to the expected bad consequences of such use is muted in the addict. As a result, instead of sending warning signals, favorable signals are sent to the nucleus accumbens, where it turns out that the salience menu is drastically abbreviated. A normal person, faced with the prospect of an evening with nothing to do, might choose from a variety of possible pleasures: calling a friend or sweetheart, going to a movie, reading a mystery novel ... the list will be quite long. For the user of cocaine (or possibly the equally dangerous methamphetamine), only cocaine has salience. If the anterior cingulate declares "that is not a good idea" -but in too weak a voice-the orbitofrontal cortex, as final arbiter, may conclude: "All things considered, I'll reach for the cocaine." The drug then gets the green light in Dr. Volkow's schema. If, as a result of a rehabilitation program, the drive for cocaine remains strong but the top-down centers are now also strong enough to veto the plan, the person may be able to avoid the temptation to use cocaine and may opt for a wiser choice. This relatively simple example prepares us to look at the more gnarled and difficult situations that certain people face as they contemplate an action that has socially terrible consequences or even the overtones of evil.
I have taken for an example that of the wife killer Justin Barber and his unfortunate wife, April.28 What prompted the murder in the case of this highly narcissistic man was a combination of mounting debts, compulsive womanizing, and increasing irritation at his model-pretty but (to Justin) oppressively sensible and reasonable wife. April was moderationin-all-things. Justin, though a midlevel executive earning a good salary, was grandiose and reckless. To acquire the fanciest cars he resorted to risky day trading on the stock market, with the result that he owed large sums both to his broker and his car dealer. He needed, as fast as practicable, a change of fate and a change of mate. April had been keeping up her payments on a two-million-dollar insurance policy of which her hus band was the beneficiary. He had already let lapse the similar policy on his life. Justin evolved a plan for a "perfect crime": the murder of his heavily insured wife artfully constructed to appear as the work of a mysterious assailant. After tapping into the Internet for guidelines about where to shoot oneself so as not to sustain any real damage, Justin lured April to a secluded Florida beach, where, a few days short of their third anniversary, he shot April to death (with one bullet) and shot himself in the hands and right chest (with four bullets). He told the police they had both been attacked by a man whose features he couldn't clearly make out because it was a dark night. If we try to grasp the "reasoning" of the husband according to the model of these four brain regions, we come up with a scenario that could have unfolded in this fashion:
The amygdala (rather than reacting with fear at the prospect of committing murder and the likelihood of getting caught, justifies the action): "There's some risk, sure, but I've been in tough situations before and I always got away with it; I've got it all figured out, foolproof, and I have nothing to worry about."
The nucleus accumbens (waving aside an accommodation with the bank, divorce, declaring bankruptcy, etc.): "Wow! With that two million, I'll pay off the debt, and have enough left over to live off the interest in the Bahamas. . ."
The anterior cingulate (acting as jury instead of shouting down such an absurd plan): "Well, I guess cops are stupid and you can fool them, though maybe they could figure out there was no third person; so I don't know.... That'd mean a long sentence.... I'd vote against it" (but the voice of the jury is weak and vacillating).
The orbitofrontal cortex (the final judge-paying more attention here to the strong drives than to the weak conscience): "I've listened to the arguments on both sides. We're too smart for the police, and that two million can solve a lot of problems. Do it!"
April had been dead only a few days before the detectives began to suspect that there was no mysterious assailant after all and that the killer was the husband himself. The police found it unusually difficult to gather enough evidence to bring the husband to trial where he was eventually found guilty and sentenced to life in prison. As is common in cases of planned murder of a wife, Justin never confessed to the crime and showed no remorse. His self-confidence (that he could literally get away with murder) and determination to go ahead with his plan (remaining deaf to the voice of conscience) are typical of men and women who do commit serious acts of violence.
Apart from a few persons who have either spoken or written candidly about their crimes, we are seldom granted a window into their conscious minds.29 As to the kind of cross-talk between the four brain centers mentioned above, we can only speculate about the kinds of (unconscious) communication that goes on among them. But it is fair to assume, given that they have all crossed the line from intention to action, that the voice of the Will was ultimately stronger than the voice of Conscience. From a neurophysiological point of view, the inhibitory brain centers, and the pools of neurons within them, could not stem the tide of violent desire. It is worth emphasizing once more that the physiology of violence (and here I include the nonphysical forms of extreme humiliation and subjugation, as well) and the physiology of evil are fundamentally the same. In either case we are dealing with acts that are criminal specifically because, as Emile Durkheim reminds us, they shock the "collective conscience" of society.30 Those deemed evil by this collective conscie
nce (the voice of the public, as I have referred to it throughout this book) happened to have shocked this conscience a step further-by the nature of the act, the nature of the victim, or both.
Contemporary psychiatric research now includes many important contributions, in addition to those of Dr. Volkow, supportive of the analogy I have been making about a failure of the brain's "braking mechanism." Dr. Larry Siever, for example, in his masterful review of the neurobiology of aggression and violence, has advanced the view that the "aggressive diathesis [or tendency] can be conceptualized in terms of an imbalance between the `top-down' control or `brakes' provided by the orbital frontal cortex and anterior cingulate cortex ... and excessive `bottom-up' drives triggered or signaled by the limbic regions, such as the amygdala and insula."31
The analogy of the "conversation" among brain centers applies not just to cases such as Justin Barber's murder of his wife but to the majority of the cases we have been considering. The serial killer, for example, whose accumbens-related salience system has forsworn all the simple pleasures in favor of rape-murder-the only thrill that will satisfy his "reward centers"-is not to be deterred by any fear messages from the amygdala: he assumes he could get away with disposing of his victims. And the more apparent success he has, the more emboldened he becomes. Gary Ridgway, though one of the least intelligent serial killers (looking only at his IQ), went eighteen years undetected for the seventy or so women that he killed. The higher centers that regulate our level of empathic concern for others (often called compassion) were also seriously compromised in Gary's case: he referred to the women as "garbage." But Gary Ridgway was not mentally ill: he was not schizophrenic, not manic, not delusional because of drug abuse, not brain-injured, not "crazy" in any other way. The balance between drives and inhibitions in Gary's case was disrupted primarily by an abnormality of personality. In general, this balance can be overturned in any of a variety of other ways as well, as, for example, by mental illness. Keeping in mind that an imbalance in the mental forces we have been discussing can come about in many different ways-insufficient fear of punishment, drives that are overpowering, weak or faulty sense of right and wrong, skewed or enfeebled judgment-we are now in a better position to understand from a neuroscience perspective some of the more common ways this can occur.
The Anatomy of Evil Page 34