The Brain, the Criminal and the Courts

People in general have such trouble reasoning with issues surrounding Cartesian dualism, and understanding how behavior is mediated neurally.

"Defendant Christopher Simmons of this case, who was only seven months shy of his 18th birthday when he murdered Shirley Crook, described to his friends beforehand—in 'chilling, callous terms,' as the Kennedy majority opinion puts it—the murder he planned to commit. He and his 15—year—old accomplice then broke into the home of an innocent woman in the middle of the night, forced her from bed, walked her to a trestle spanning a river, 'hog—tied' her with duct tape and electrical wire, and threw her off a bridge alive and conscious. She drowned."

"In Alabama, two 17—year—olds, one 16—year—old, and one 19—year—old picked up a female hitchhiker, threw bottles at her, and kicked and stomped her for approximately 30 minutes until she died. They then sexually assaulted her lifeless body and, when they were finished, threw her body off a cliff. They later returned to the crime scene to mutilate her corpse."

In these cases, the problem is not impulse control but evil. I hope the courts never forget that evil exists.

It depends on your view of the justice system. Is it punishment against the guilty? Is it protection for society? Is it rehabilitation for those who have lost their way?

In reality, it's a mix of all of that. But regardless, I don't think we should allow a person to continue to commit violent acts against the innocent just because "it's not their fault". Maybe jail isn't the right answer, but something should still be done in that case. Maybe they should get shipped to a mental hospital with the rest of the so called "criminally insane"?

edit: I would also add that I don't consider that the injury gave the criminal no choice. I believe that it removed inhibitions that most people regularly experience.