> Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Jon Gabriel wrote: > >>From: Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<OK, I'm pretty sure I've lost the attributions somewhere along the line, but it wasn't intentional!> [Jon or Ronn! I think posted:] >>>http://www.salon.com/mwt/wire/2003/07/28/pedophile/index.html > >>>"The man had an egg-sized brain tumor pressing on > the right frontal > >>>lobe. When surgeons removed it, the lewd behavior > and pedophilia faded away... <snip> > >>>Dr. Stuart C. Yudofsky, a psychiatrist at the > Baylor College of Medicine > >>>who specializes in behavioral changes associated > with brain disorders, > >>>also has seen the way brain tumors can bend a > person's behavior. "This > >>>tells us something about being human, doesn't > it?" Yudofsky said. If > >>>one's actions are governed by how well the brain > is working, "does it > >>>mean we have less free will than we think?" Frontal lobe tumors can be clinically 'silent' for years, or they can cause subtle -> profound behavioral and personality changes - this is not a new finding. Although the pedophilia effect is, AFAIK. <snip> > >>So what do we do to protect society from those who > commit heinous crimes > >>where either (1) no organic problem can be found, > (2) an organic problem > >>is found, but we don't know how to treat it, or > (3) an organic problem is >>>found and treated, but the behavior does not change? > > > >Well, in the case of pedophiles, that would be: > > > >1) Firing Squad > >2) Firing Squad > >3) Castration, then Firing Squad > > > >Yes, I'm serious. I think they're repulsive. > > I think we agree on that. Think I said the much the same last year. > >To answer your question in a different way, I > suppose the solution may > >just be to give people a test to see if they have a > tumor that, if > >removed, may cure them. If they don't, prosecute. > > > >If no other medical condition has been found to > conclusively cause > >aberrant behavior of this type then the theory that > one might is probably legally irrelevant. <snappish mode> I'm sure some lawyer somewhere will try, though. > Here's the COW, as I see it: > > In many jurisdictions, one can be found "not guilty > due to mental defect or > disease" (or words to that effect), i.e., what is > often referred to as the > "insanity defense." Let's suppose a pedophile, or a > murderer, or a <insert > heinous crime of your choice here> is found to have > a brain tumor (or other >clearly diagnosable organic brain dysfunction). Do we: > > (a) declare him "not guilty" due to his illness and > let him go because legally he is not guilty of >anything? Not without the offending condition being treated; if it's untreatable, he's incarcerated as criminally insane -- and never leaves unless a cure is later discovered -- which was one of your options: > (b) ....or submit to > treatment for the illness, and if the illness cannot > be treated....commit him to a secure mental > institution for at least the > same amount of time, or until such time as he does > respond to > treatment? (BTW, how do you tell for sure if a > pedophile has really been > cured except by letting him out and observing that > he does not re-offend?) There is no other sure way, unfortunately. > While I would be inclined toward something like (b) > (IANAL so don't yell at > me if I have put some of it incorrectly), I expect > that many will say > either (1) "He's been found ‘not guilty’, so legally > he should be free to > go," or (2) "Mentally ill people should not be > imprisoned like common > criminals," or something of that sort. Do we need > to change the laws to > allow for a verdict of "guilty but insane" which > would require the person > to be confined for the protection of society until > he is no longer a danger > and receive treatment if any is available? Yes. However I can see a huge potential for abuse by 'the system' here. Oversight or otherwise independent committees would have to be created. > In the latter case, do we make > these people guinea pigs for experimental > "treatments" which may or may not > cure their problem (although there certainly are > "treatments" which will > cause them to no longer be a danger to society: a > radical prefrontal > lobotomy, frex, though the result of such an extreme > "treatment" may well > be that they will have to be institutionalized for > the rest of their lives > because they are no longer able to function well > enough to care for themselves), or what? Mmm, the thought of such "experimental treatments" makes my blood run cold. The problem with offering these people a choice between potentially curative therapy (which I am assuming carries significant risk to the offender, b/c if there was low risk then I wouldn't object strongly to it - just as we require jailed inmates with TB to take anti-tuberculous medication for the protection of the prison population), and lifelong incarceration, is that they are likely not competent to make such decisions; they would have to have medical-legal guardians/power-of-attorney, probably court-appointed (another potential source of abuse). My personal take (which I admit is skewed) is that rendering a person non-functional via lobotomy is worse than killing them. In the case of a heinous offender who is 'otherwise competent' but has no known cure for the condition (let's say the brain tumor is inoperable*), I'd give the offender the right to choose between lifetime incarceration (with perhaps a chance of a cure?) or death. *Frex its removal would most likely render the person a drooling idiot. Reggie wrote: "Was this covered to some extent by Brin in the early Uplift novels, with the Probationers? It's been a *long* time since I read those, does anyone have them handy?" I haven't read them for a while either, but in _Startide_ I recall Irongrip saying something sarcastic along the lines of '...maybe we [Probationers] *shouldn't* be allowed near chimmies and children..." And in _Sundiver_ there were human Probationers who were held in separate compounds, IIRC. I think these were deliberately left in (or indroduced) as uncomfortable dilemmas - how to balance the protection of society-at-large with the rights of the individual (particularly since Probationers do not _choose_ to be deviant, but are by definition genetically flawed, and are not permitted to breed). Debbi Shades Of A Cuckoo's Nest Maru __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
