Commuting the Sentence of Medical Pedophiles

[Dreadnaught]

Imagine you are on a jury or you are a judge. You are presented with a man who has been caught soliciting a child prostitute (or a scam). He is married. At his home you find a computer and drawers full of child pornography.

His wife says his sexual preferences began taking a dramatic turn about six months before and she's struggled to figure out what to do.

The man's lawyer makes a compelling case that the man has become medically and temporarily inclined to violate social norms and desire children. But that he can be treated.

Do you commute/reduce his potential sentence for soliciting child prostitution and possessing child pornography?

[wiggin]

Assuming that the alternative to his sentencing is aggressive treatment for his condition followed by strict monitoring, why not? Obviously there are some suspect bits about this case - you'd have to have a bunch of mental health professionals first prove that this was a mental health problem, and secondly that it could be convincingly treated... so I'm skeptical it could be done. But in theory? Why not?

The converse is that much of our 'antisocial' behavior (e.g. murders, rapes, etc.) might be construed as mental illness, which might militate for always focusing on the mental health problem and not punishment for the crime. But since I generally favor rehabilitation - when possible - over pointlessly locking up criminals, I suppose this might not be the worst outcome.

Let us imagine a future where many crimes can be traced to a mental instability and treated. Why shouldn't we change our jails from pens for criminals into mental health clinics that convincingly cure the ill? Obviously these would be involuntary 'commitments', and the criminals would be held until they were no longer considered a threat to others (so, not so different from jail after all). But in principle, I don't have a problem with trying to treat the mentally ill who perform heinous acts when they are unstable.

Of course, if you're suggesting that instead of a convincing treatment regimen we should just go easy on someone because they weren't 'themselves', I'd disagree entirely. They're still a threat to society regardless of their motives and level of control over their actions.

[Loki]

Assuming that the alternative to his sentencing is aggressive treatment for his condition followed by strict monitoring, why not? Obviously there are some suspect bits about this case - you'd have to have a bunch of mental health professionals first prove that this was a mental health problem, and secondly that it could be convincingly treated... so I'm skeptical it could be done. But in theory? Why not?

The converse is that much of our 'antisocial' behavior (e.g. murders, rapes, etc.) might be construed as mental illness, which might militate for always focusing on the mental health problem and not punishment for the crime. But since I generally favor rehabilitation - when possible - over pointlessly locking up criminals, I suppose this might not be the worst outcome.

Let us imagine a future where many crimes can be traced to a mental instability and treated. Why shouldn't we change our jails from pens for criminals into mental health clinics that convincingly cure the ill? Obviously these would be involuntary 'commitments', and the criminals would be held until they were no longer considered a threat to others (so, not so different from jail after all). But in principle, I don't have a problem with trying to treat the mentally ill who perform heinous acts when they are unstable.

Of course, if you're suggesting that instead of a convincing treatment regimen we should just go easy on someone because they weren't 'themselves', I'd disagree entirely. They're still a threat to society regardless of their motives and level of control over their actions.

The flaw with that logic is that most forms of mental illness do not serve as a sufficient condition for crime. For every mentally ill person who commits a crime, there are probably 20 who do not (even if we control for type of illness). If we don't punish people just because of their mental health, we're saying that these people had no responsibility for their actions. This is rarely the case.

[RandBlade]

And yet date-rape is different in your eyes. Hypocrisy much?

No hypocrisy. And I said date-rape style situation, not just date-rape. You really don't seem to understand what I'm saying. I'll repeat the original quote "The only time I'd view things differently is in a date-rape style scenario, where someone else has drugged another person against their will."

Yes. And how many did manage to get off drinking without outside intervention? As I said: Logical hole. You're trying to tell us that a disease is not so dangerous after it has been treated...

We don't know, we can't know.

I mean, you even cite the phrase of the group which helps people to stay off alcohol. If you were fully able to choose you would not need such interventions in the first place!

It's not about the fact they have help or anything. The fact is they are the ones who are not acting on it. They are all still alcoholics, but they're not drunk.

You just contradicted yourself there. Ignorance can be an explanation for behavior, if you're 'drugged' against your knowledge.

Being drugged against your will doesn't fall under ignorance. Ignorance is no defence under the law. If you're drugged against your will then you're a victim who has been attacked.

[Khendraja'aro]

No hypocrisy. And I said date-rape style situation, not just date-rape. You really don't seem to understand what I'm saying. I'll repeat the original quote "The only time I'd view things differently is in a date-rape style scenario, where someone else has drugged another person against their will."

Wait, wait, wait.

The sentence before that was: "If you drink something that you didn't realise contained alcohol out of ignorance or whatever then you're still responsible. Ignorance is no excuse."

That, my dear, does not wash with your second sentence. It's a direct contradiction. Unless you now want to explain to us that those girls raped are somehow responsible for being raped under the influence.

It's not about the fact they have help or anything. The fact is they are the ones who are not acting on it. They are all still alcoholics, but they're not drunk.

You really don't understand the difference between "untreated condition" and "condition under/after treatment", do you? You're conflating the two. You're obviously confused here. Again: To use a more outlandish comparison - it's like a person infected with Bubonic Plague all on his own, and a person infected with the Bubonic Plage under quarantine and stuffed with antibiotics. First one is dangerous, second one at risk but not actually dangerous. However, with your argument, the two are the same! When in reality they are not.

[RandBlade]

Wait, wait, wait.

The sentence before that was: "If you drink something that you didn't realise contained alcohol out of ignorance or whatever then you're still responsible. Ignorance is no excuse."

That, my dear, does not wash with your second sentence. It's a direct contradiction. Unless you now want to explain to us that those girls raped are somehow responsible for being raped under the influence.

What is so difficult to understand?

If you drink an alcoholic drink out of ignorance then its your responsibility, if you drink a non-alcoholic drink but someone has drugged it then its their responsibility.

If I go to a bar and repeatedly order a cocktail, lets say Long Island Iced Tea and then drive off I can't turn around and say that I thought I was drinking a non-alcoholic tea drink and that I didn't realise Long Island Iced Tea was an alcoholic cocktail.

You really don't understand the difference between "untreated condition" and "condition under/after treatment", do you? You're conflating the two. You're obviously confused here. Again: To use a more outlandish comparison - it's like a person infected with Bubonic Plague all on his own, and a person infected with the Bubonic Plage under quarantine and stuffed with antibiotics. First one is dangerous, second one at risk but not actually dangerous. However, with your argument, the two are the same! When in reality they are not.

You don't understand the difference between an impulse and an action?

Just because someone is attracted to children does not mean they have to abuse children. I am attracted to women, but I'm not out there abusing any. In fact I'm engaged, I've commited to only being with the same woman for the rest of my life. Does that mean that I'm never attracted to anyone else, that I'm commited to never thinking anyone else looks good? No, of course not. It means I won't act on that, because to do so would be wrong. Someone with an unnatural predilection towards children doesn't have to act on it, they can "live a lie" and ignore it.

[GGT]

This sounds like a Law and Order episode. But that dealt with virtual child porn, and an adult entertainment web site that would spam up convicted sexual predators e-mail with tempting kiddie pics...

[Wraith]

Do you commute/reduce his potential sentence for soliciting child prostitution and possessing child pornography?

I don't think so. While his sexual preferences aren't his fault, what he does with them is. Presumably, all pedophiles want kiddies because of some combination of genetic factors and environmental stimuli, so I can't really see the difference between the generic case and this one.

The one thing I would be inclined to give him is that after his sentence, I think he should probably be allowed to stay off the sex offender list if it can be proven that it really was a temporary condition and he's very unlikely to relapse. The punishment is there as a deterrent, but the sex offender list is there as a preventative measure, and I don't see the point in going through with it without cause.

He should of course get mandatory treatment whatever the outcome.

[Dreadnaught]

I guess this is where it gets interesting —*if this is temporary, is him taking action really his fault? Can the sentence then just be rehabilitation without any punishment?

I think Wiggin has a good point too. What is someday we can trace many crimes to a specific mental defect?

[Flixy]

I guess this is where it gets interesting —*if this is temporary, is him taking action really his fault? Can the sentence then just be rehabilitation without any punishment?

I think Wiggin has a good point too. What is someday we can trace many crimes to a specific mental defect?

If it is not really his fault because it's temporary, then it follows that it's also not his fault if it was not temporary (only difference is rehabilitation).

[Lewkowski]

Imagine you are on a jury or you are a judge. You are presented with a man who has been caught soliciting a child prostitute (or a scam). He is married. At his home you find a computer and drawers full of child pornography.

His wife says his sexual preferences began taking a dramatic turn about six months before and she's struggled to figure out what to do.

The man's lawyer makes a compelling case that the man has become medically and temporarily inclined to violate social norms and desire children. But that he can be treated.

Do you commute/reduce his potential sentence for soliciting child prostitution and possessing child pornography?

No.

[Dreadnaught]

Even if the evidence is pretty clear that this is a normal man whose brain has effectively and temporarily been hijacked?

[LittleFuzzy]

Imagine you are on a jury or you are a judge. You are presented with a man who has been caught soliciting a child prostitute (or a scam). He is married. At his home you find a computer and drawers full of child pornography.

His wife says his sexual preferences began taking a dramatic turn about six months before and she's struggled to figure out what to do.

The man's lawyer makes a compelling case that the man has become medically and temporarily inclined to violate social norms and desire children. But that he can be treated.

Do you commute/reduce his potential sentence for soliciting child prostitution and possessing child pornography?

Well, if the defense lawyer makes a compelling case and the prosecutor does not, and the provisions for temporary insanity under the law call for commutation or reducing the sentence, then yes?

[GGT]

What if.....it's medical in nature but not temporary? As in repeated head injury, dementia, Alzheimer's. Or it's medical but only temporary if medication can treat it, but the man is non-compliant with taking his meds?

[RandBlade]

Imagine you are on a jury or you are a judge. You are presented with a man who has been caught soliciting a child prostitute (or a scam). He is married. At his home you find a computer and drawers full of child pornography.

His wife says his sexual preferences began taking a dramatic turn about six months before and she's struggled to figure out what to do.

The man's lawyer makes a compelling case that the man has become medically and temporarily inclined to violate social norms and desire children. But that he can be treated.

Do you commute/reduce his potential sentence for soliciting child prostitution and possessing child pornography?

No.

He acted on those impulses, that was not necessary.

[GGT]

No.

He acted on those impulses, that was not necessary.

Dread's setting the scenario for when people act on [dangerous, violent, socially unacceptable] impulses due to medical conditions.

Change a few of the details and we could be discussing Loughner http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loughner who shot Rep. Giffords and killed six people. He's mentally ill and could be helped by medication, but if he's medicated he'd be deemed fit to stand trial....

[RandBlade]

Dread's setting the scenario for when people act on [dangerous, violent, socially unacceptable] impulses due to medical conditions.

Change a few of the details and we could be discussing Loughner http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loughner who shot Rep. Giffords and killed six people. He's mentally ill and could be helped by medication, but if he's medicated he'd be deemed fit to stand trial....

No, people have impulses perhaps due to medical conditions. People are also responsible if they choose to act on them.

[Flixy]

No, people have impulses perhaps due to medical conditions. People are also responsible if they choose to act on them.

I take it you are always against a temporary insanity defense, under any circumstances?

[Lebanese Dragon]

—*if this is temporary, is him taking action really his fault? Can the sentence then just be rehabilitation without any punishment?

For me it's not about being "his fault" in the legal situation, it's about is he a danger to society, as in will he reasonably re-commit these crimes. That to me ultimately is all that matters. I believe strongly with detainment + rehabiliation. I don't believe in torturing them, or killing them, or doing something purely to cause them pain or anguish, i.e. for the sake of "getting even". Now we need punishment as a deterrant for crimes, adn I feel detainment serves that funtion as you attempt to rehabilitate them. I may accept minimum times of detainment for certain situations with chance of parole for good behavior, to function as a deterrant, even if the people are convinced this person is perfectly okay now.

Lame thing, I feel about prison, when i think about the rapes, and the internal social structers in there, it just seems to me it can take an average criminal which anyone could be, and potentially harden them, and condition to them to a real thug mentality.

[RandBlade]

I take it you are always against a temporary insanity defense, under any circumstances?

No, but under most.

Being attracted to children and acting on those impulses are two different things. He did the crime.

[LittleFuzzy]

No, people have impulses perhaps due to medical conditions. People are also responsible if they choose to act on them.

Mm, there isn't really a clear distinction between an impulse and a compulsion, wrt medically-related radical personality changes.

[GGT]

Not really. Certain medical conditions actually interfere with (or remove) the element of choice. That's the whole point.

[Dreadnaught]

Had a reason for posting this but turns out I need to type it up in more detail, will do so later.

[Aimless]

I don't really think most pedophiles--whether pros or amateurs --should be in regular prison. I wouldn't recommend prison as the first choice in the case of a person who commits a pedophilia-related crime due to pathology that impairs judgement or inhibitions. What would be the point?

[Wraith]

I wouldn't recommend prison as the first choice in the case of a person who commits a pedophilia-related crime due to pathology that impairs judgement or inhibitions.

That wasn't given in the problem statement, or are you saying that's an intrinsic characteristic of all pedophiles?

[Steely Glint]

Given the level of planning that goes into child abuse by pedophiles, I find it hard to believe that they're simply suffering from some uncontrollable impulse. Not when you've spent 6 months grooming your victim on facebook or whatever. Also, we don't refrain from locking up sociopaths who murder or abuse others for their own gratification because they have a pathology, so I'm not sure why we should do so for pedophiles. If there was some magical way we could cure them, then that would remove the need to continue to incarcerate or restrain them beyond their sentence.

Though, frankly, if we could do that then the focus should really be on detecting and curing them before they can offend. Though, really, in active pedophiles there has to be forms of personality disorders at play beyond sexual attraction to children - like, predatory or sociopathic ones. I think most people would be capable of refraining from acting on their sexual desires if it meant inflicting horrific trauma on another person for the rest of their lives. I've always assumed there are plenty of pedophiles out there who simply don't act on their urges because they're able to understand their consequences for their victims, but then I don't know much about how it actually works as a psychological disorder - maybe it's inextricably linked to predatory behavior.

[Dreadnaught]

This is from pages 296ish of a new book called "Incognity, The Secret Lives of the Brain" by David Eagleman.

http://books.google.com/ebooks?id=nkPj3dNFYwoC

Take the case of a fourty-year-old man we'll call Alex. Alex's wife, Julia, began to notice a change in his sexual preferences. For the first time in the two decades she had known him, he began to show an interest in child pornography. And not just a little interest, an overwhelming one. He poured his time and energy into visiting child pornography websites and collecting magazines. He also solicited prostitution from a young woman at a massage parlor, something he had never previously done. This was no longer the man Julia had married, and she was alarmed by the change his his behavior.

At the same time, Alex was complaining of worsening headaches. And so Julia took them to the family doctor, who referred them on to a neurologis. Alex underwent a brain scan, which revealed a massive brain tumor in his orbitofrontal cortex. The neurosurgeons removed the tummor. Alex's sexual appetite returned to normal.

Alex's story highlights a deep central point: when tour biology changes, so can your decision making, your appetites, and your desires. The drives you take for granted ("I'm a hetero/homosexual," "I'm aggressive/not aggressive," and so on) depend on the intricate details of your neural machinery. Although acting on such drives is popularly thought to be a free choice, the most cursory examination of the evidence demonstrates the limits of that assumption; we will see further examples in a moment.

The lesson of Alex's story is reinforced by its unexpected follow-up. About six months after the brain surgery, his pedophiliac behavior began to return. His wife took him back to the doctors. The neuroradiologist discovered that a portion of the tumor had been missed in surgery and was regrowing -- and Alex went back under the knife. After the removal of the remaining tumor, his behavior returned to normal.

Alex's sudden pedophilia illustrates that hidden drives and desires can lurk undetected behind the neural machinery of socialization. When the frontal lobe is compromised, people become "disinhibited," unmasking the seedier elements in the neural democracy. Would it be correct to say that Alex was "fundamentally" a pedophile, merely socialized to resist his impulses? Perhaps, but before we assigned labels, consider that you probably would not want to discover alien subroutines that lurk under your own frontal cortex.

A common example of this disinhibited behavior is seen in patients with frontotemporal dementia, a tragic disease in which the frontal and temporal lobes degenerate. With he loss of the brain tissue, patients lose the ability to control hidden impulses.

It's a really fascinating chapter. He tries to argue there is no such thing as true neuro/biological "free will". He doesn't argue that courts/punishments will or should go away. But I think the implications of the research he's summarizing are profound if neuroscience goes on the same trajectory for another few hundred years.

[Wraith]

It's a really fascinating chapter. He tries to argue there is no such thing as true neuro/biological "free will". He doesn't argue that courts/punishments will or should go away. But I think the implications of the research he's summarizing are profound if neuroscience goes on the same trajectory for another few hundred years.

You could apply the same line of reasoning to our entire justice system. "Nothing anybody does is their fault. That's just how their brain is."

[Aimless]

You could apply the same line of reasoning to our entire justice system. "Nothing anybody does is their fault. That's just how their brain is."

Sure, but you can adapt the remedy to what you know about their brains. Prison-rape doesn't have to be the first last and only line of defense against the worst scum of the universe. Re. your previous question I just thought that's what dread was getting at. Not all pedophiles and child molestors--whether fixated or opportunistic--have impaired judgement or lack impulse control due to eg. tumor, extreme compulsive disorder, severe personality disorder characterised by impulsivity, etc. Dread's example seemed to be of a man who does fall into one of those categories, just like some people have a readily identifiable cause of psychosis. Don't you guys test for those things when there's a possibility that you're dealing with a eg. psychosis? Or do you leave it all up to judge and jury? We leave it to forensic psychiatrists.





I think we should keep Lewkowski off of juries. He represents the greatest danger with the jury system: a man who bases his verdict on his gut and on his hatred rather than on evidence.

[Lewkowski]

Not buying it. If I was on the jury I'd have no problem convicting.