Could science convince you that the shooter was not ethically responsible for his actions?

[tymorial]

44. Yes and no but the larger issue is one of stigmatizing mental illness

There are examples of brain tumors which have led to the complete loss of inhibition but the individuals retain their sense of morality and recognition of "right and wrong." They are completely unable to stop themselves much like an addict willing to cheat, steal and murder to obtain their fix. Sometimes these changes are abrupt but more often than not it is a gradual progression towards less and less inhibition to the point that they must be stopped. If these people were able to ask for help without the stigma and automatic pronouncement of guilt (even if they haven't done anything at the point) perhaps lives could be saved.

Let's for example consider someone who was normal one day and then the next they began having disgusting and sexually deviant thoughts. The thoughts turn to obsession. They start going to brothels but that's not enough. They find children sexually attractive so they try to halt the craving by going to more brothels and prostitutes but that's not enough. They start to collect pedophilic pornography but that's not enough. They eventually attempt to sexually assault their step daughter. The daughter tells her mother, the person is thrown out of the house. They are arrested etc etc etc. All treatment has failed, the person cannot stop. He eventually gets extremely ill and ends up in the hospital. He is making sexually suggestive remarks at everyone at this point. Yet, he can barely walk. He urinates and defecates all over himself but doesn't care. The medical staff recognize that something is very wrong with the man and there is more to the story. They discover a brain tumor which is removed. The man's obsession and complete lack of inhibition is gone, he is now back to the way he was originally. He knew his actions were wrong from the very start but couldn't stop himself.

Where could the man have gone from the moment he discovered his behavior? He had committed no crimes at that point but just the admission of his obsessions would have forever stigmatized and labeled him. We need a new approach. Now, the example I posted is true, it actually happened to a man. It is an extreme example of the thought experiment but I wanted to prove a point. Had access to support been available, a very different outcome may have occurred.

Now, whether or not he was still morally and ethically responsible for his actions. He was absolutely responsible because even though he was unable to halt his actions, he still knew they were wrong. He knew they were wrong but couldn't stop himself and had no place to seek help other than prison. He most certainly would have been killed there. This subject is very complex.