Naturalistic Science Influences Criminal Law, Excuses Murder
Why was Science1 magazine happy about the Supreme Court’s decision to eliminate the death penalty for murderers under 17? Because the decision was not made on the basis of the Constitution or on Judeo-Christian values, but rather on psychiatric, neuroscientific and behavioral studies:
Eight medical organizations, led by the American Society for Adolescent Psychiatry (ASAP), filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the defendant, Christopher Simmons. The groups cited numerous neuroscientific and behavioral studies suggesting that brains continue to develop well into the mid-20s, and that the last region to develop is the prefrontal cortex, which prevents people from making rash, impulsive decisions (Science, 30 July 2004, p. 596). “These developmental differences make them less culpable and therefore less deserving of the ultimate punishment,” argues law professor Steven Drizin of Northwestern University in Chicago. (Emphasis added in all quotes.)
In the editorial, Mary Beckman appears pleased that the justices cited scientific studies in making their decision. She ends with physician David Fassler (American Psychiatric Association), who said, “It’s obviously very good news. The ruling is consistent with all the major medical organizations.”
1Mary Beckman, “ Supreme Court Ends Death Penalty for Minors,” Science, 1 March 2005.
How good are psychiatrists at determining human responsibility? They can monitor brain waves, and attach electrodes to parts of a brain to see what parts light up when a person is stimulated in various ways. Character, however, cannot be measured by lab instruments.
Darwin Party scientists, who are materialists by definition, perceive every biological function as an interaction of molecules acted on by natural selection. There is no spirit, no soul, no truly intangible entity called character; these are just artifacts of chemistry. Such reductionism leads to some serious ramifications, as seen here. These scientists have made a very subjective judgment that the chemistry in a teenage brain has not sufficiently progressed to make them accountable for their behavior. But here they become morally confused, because they invoke the word culpable, thus making a value judgment: “These developmental differences make them less culpable….” What on earth is culpability, if not responsibility – a measurement of character, guilt or innocence? How can anyone make a judgment that this or that chemical reaction is “deserving of the ultimate punishment”? Apparently the Supreme Court did not catch this inconsistency and ask the “scientific experts” to define their terms. They allowed them to wander outside their worldview and sneak in Judeo-Christian moral concepts.
It is one thing to say that the mind can be affected by the brain, and that behavior can be influenced, sometimes overwhelmingly, by chemistry. It is another to say the mind is chemistry. The materialistic Darwin Party biologists and psychologists, who are nearly 100% Democrats (see 12/02/2004 entry), have achieved a coup over the Supreme Court by fooling them into thinking the debate revolved around “science.” They dressed up their reductionist, materialist philosophy in scientific garb to give it an undeserved authority.
Naturalism cannot judge character. The Darwinists think lying evolved (see 04/26/2004 entry), culture evolved (06/28/2004), and the mind evolved (06/16/2004); but to believe this, they must use their own intangible minds as if they were capable of true, objective logic and reliable perception of the world – thoughts that cannot be reduced to interactions of atoms and molecules. To convince others, they must resort to bluffing and extrapolating meager lab results based on their preconceived philosophical notions. Their position is unsound scientifically, logically, philosophically and politically (see “The Evolution of Folly, or Vice Versa?” (10/14/2002). Some of these false prophets even teach that rape evolved (07/17/2003) and that suicide terrorism is an evolutionary artifact (see 04/02/2004 entry). Rather than express outrage at such views, Science prints them with commendations from peers! What kind of society will this bring – one in which criminal behavior is rewarded as survival of the fittest?
Regardless of your position on the death penalty, you should be outraged at the way this Supreme Court decision was argued and what it implies. If you are an adult, you were once 16 or 17 years old; how would you feel if someone told you that you were utterly incapable of responsible or logical behavior till you were 25? If you are in age group 16-25, how do you feel about these Darwinist eggheads deciding you have no sense, and cannot be held responsible for your actions? You can be an honor student at high school, you can attend the university and get a PhD, you can vote and drive and marry and write and perform community service and serve on a battlefield and do a million other things that require skill, intelligence, planning, logic, choice and determination. But if you murder someone, well, you couldn’t help yourself, because your frontal lobe was not yet fully developed.
Because of this ruling, young criminals may become emboldened to commit murder, knowing that, if caught, they might win an all-expense paid living with free cafeteria and gym. Anyone thinking the battle over evolution only affects the biology classroom had better wake up. It affects all of society, including the actions of those gang members walking down your street. This is another reason why the Darwin Party, the pseudoscientific propaganda arm of the Democratic Party and of radical liberals worldwide, must be defeated.