Can you call it thinking?

I was reading this article on Arstechnica, which popularizes some neuroscience research that suggests that such psychopaths who have trouble avoiding legal trouble have smaller frontal cortices than others, when I stumbled upon the following passage:

…biologically deterministic arguments are increasingly being made in court. The most famous, as featured in the New York Times, was the case of Herbert Weinstein. Weinstein strangled his wife and then threw her out of a window in order to make her death look like a suicide. He also had a large cyst in his brain, which the defense team obviously wanted to use as mitigating evidence. The Judge ruled that the brain scans could be shown to the jury, but that they could not be told that cysts like Weinstein’s were associated with violence.

Despite this, the prosecution was so afraid of the result that they plea-bargained the case down to manslaughter.

Another fine example of how a judaized justice system works. A jew (well, I’m not sure if Weinstein is technically a jew but almost surely he is of jewish descent) gets away with murder just because he supposedly has some brain damage. Whether or not that is true, someone like Weinstein certainly is a danger to the society and should not be allowed to walk freely after just a few years in prison with zero guarantees he won’t murder again.

Anyway, even with all the technical progress that could potentially help us prevent the rise of psychopaths in our hierarchies, it certainly looks like legal thinking is going backwards to ensure no actual progress will be made. Instead of using technology to keep the threats out of positions of power, we make sure they get lower sentences after they murder us thanks to the use of that technology. Ain’t that just how things should be?

Report This Post

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *