There have been reported cases of people who commit violent offenses of various kinds and have no memory of having done them. Doctors have discovered that this behavior can be attributed to a calcified glioma in the temporal lobe. A calcified glioma is a tumor-like structure no larger than a grain of sand and it results in seizure-like discharges in the local area of the brain it is embedded in. The overall behavior is not a seizure but the violent behavior just described. Furthermore, with just a simple operation, the calcified glioma can be removed, and the subject never engages, or even has the urge to engage, in this kind of behavior again.
If someone committed a violent act, such as murder, on you or someone you love - or anyone for that matter - and it turned out that the root cause was a calcified glioma - meaning that he/she could not help doing it, can’t even remember doing it, and can easily be stopped from doing it again by a simple operation - should the assaultant be pardoned?
Firstly, I would like to see some evidence for the situation you describe; I’ve never heard of that, and for purely educational purposes would be interested in learning more.
Now, assuming that everything you’ve said is true, I would have to argue that they should not be punished. If they were not personally responsible for their actions, I don’t see how they could be held responsible.
I did provide a link, but I understand this does not necessarily represent a credible source. I do have the audio recording mentioned in this site, and I’ll listen to it again and see if Robinson mentions who conducted these studies.
Anyway, there has to be something that can be done about the losses to families that the perpetrator brought about. We may be able to take an objective stance on this issue, saying that it was not his fault, he suffered from a calcified glioma, but would the victoms of his assaults be able to take the same objective view? Their losses and emotional needs can’t be ignored.
Well, verifiable or not, it still raises an interesting philosophical question.
I know for me personally, my eagerness for revenge and vindictiveness is calmed quite thoroughly by learning that the perpetrator had no control over their actions. The need to ‘punish’ someone for wrongdoing just isn’t the same if they don’t understand why they are being punished. Just like if your dog pees on the floor in your apartment and you smack him 7 hours later when you get home, its less effective than if you catch him in the act and administer discipline.
However at the same time, you are tortured by the loss you have suffered due to this individual. I think what is needed is to get past the “blaming of the body.” This physical entity, this PERSON, committed this act, therefore this same physical entity needs to receive the consequences upon his flesh - when the mind is a different matter entirely. I would say that, given we could prove unequivocally that the individual was in no control of their actions due to this ‘medical’ reason, and also just as assuredly state that as a result of this operation these behavior types would never resurface, yes I could pardon them. However, there are a lot of conditions in there for things that aren’t easy to demonstrate to the satisfaction of a bereaved and suffering loved one.
I think that at this stage in our society we are at the threshold of this sort of knowledge and still not at the point where cutting into peoples brains to fix this or that is globally accepted. The Morality police would have a field day with this, no doubt. But as for me personally, yes, I could forgive them …just like you can forgive the kid who spills his food cause he doesn’t know any better. But once they grow up, you hold them accountable for their actions.
Robinson mentions Wilder Penfield as the one who first cured the condition. I haven’t found any sites linking Penfield with the condition though, but several articles describe him as making much headway in treating epilepsy in general.
I wouldnt even consider convicting this person. Its like self-defense in a sense that it couldnt be helped. Why should you be punished for something you have no control over?
They can’t help doing it…BUT it’s a type of mental disorter which the results in “violent side effects”. The most that should happen to a person like this is being put in a mental institute so that they can get help. Plus, it’s treatable (as gib said)…they can get the calcified glioma removed.
Under the law here in the US, it would be hard to get a conviction because the insanity statutes state that in order to prove the insanity of a defendent, he must only show that he did not understand his actions or the consequences of his actions at the time they were committed.
Under this loophole, persons with no psychophysiological problems (ie tumor or cist) have used the defense of “Temporary insanity” and been acquitted, saying they had an underlying mental disease.
On the other hand, he would probably be charged in a civil court, because there the burden of proof is lower.
Regardless of the reason, a person can’t be pardoned for something so simple. That may sound harsh, but when you look at it, today’s society is one in which we find excuses for everything. We catagorize and pardon, enlisting genetics and/or disorders as the causes for things.
Personally, I don’t care if he was under control of himself or not, when he killed my girlfriend, or my mother, or, gods forbid, my 5 year old daughter.
The hands are stained with that blood. Its not self defense. Self defense means you’re responding to a threat on your life. Its still murder. Pure and simple.
As for these disorders being excusable: I’m diagnosed as having extreme OCD. I get an almost uncontrollable urge to touch every wall, when I enter a new room. However, I force myself not to. Have been able to do this for years now.
What does that say? That these things are resistable. Just because you have an urge to feel violent, because of some natural phenomenon, doesn’t mean you have the right to be violent.
Existence of a non-life threatening cause does not, and can not, provide clemency for unlawful actions, without disrupting the flow of law itself.
If the disease is treated, and he is of no harm to anyone he should be free to go. Punishment should be based on the concept of conscious decision making, and not on automatic responses to physical or mental ailments. A lot of crackpot doctors have thought up illnesses which may pardon someone from a crime based on their knowledge of right and wrong. This ailment has clinical evidence.
Look, sick or not, you’re still the master of your own actions. If you choose to ignore the symptoms, and the disease grows to the point where you commit murder, you are still responsible. Sure, add fixing the problem to the list of mandatory punishments for the person, but do not remove the punishment itself. A person who has murdered, or who has commited violent crimes, and been caught, deserves exactly what they get. A lack of foreknowledge about the consequences is no excuse. If I drunk a handle of everclear, then ran someone over with my chevy blazer, and protested that because of my alcoholism, I needed alcohol, and because of the alcohol, I was unable to tell that it was wrong for me to drive, I’d be laughed at, and still charged with vehicular manslaughter.
People are coddled wway too much. Now adays, we try to diagnose and excuse. But, just as evolutionary fitness is notably an explination, and not a sanction, so mental illness should be: It explains why, but it shouldn’t let you get away with murder.
Certain mental illnesses that include psychosis destroys the part of the brain that notices the deterioration of mental and cognitive functions. So you can’t use the ignoring of knowledge of disease before the crime against them, because it is impossible. Plus, those who are mentally ill do not cause it in the first place, they are born with it, or with a predisposition to it.
