Neurological Correlates

Harvey Milk

I have a problem with two court cases: one, the fake Rockefeller, and two,  upholding Prop 8.

Dumb, dumb, dumb.

(To steal DiFi’s usual quote, when she was mayor of SF.)(An aside: If you google “Feinstein” and “dumb, dumb, dumb” she said that frequently.)

Hey MacArthur geniuses studying Neuroscience and the law, what say you about this?

1. Fake Rockefeller case.  Defense puts up “he was kicked as a puppy, so he grew up and kicked his own puppy” defense.  Name of defense docs: Dr. Ablow and Dr. Howe.   Dr. Howe even testified that the guy has a “diagnosis unto himself.” The defense experts also opined that fake Rockefeller had untreated mental illness throughout their marriage (the better part of a decade) and so despite his being a raging narcissist, if others didn’t (a) recognize he had a mental illness and (b) force treatment on him,  they basically consented to being victims.

Dumb, dumb, dumb.  Strike this from the record. Are these experts for real?

But that’s secondary:

1. Free will or no? Did the defendant have the capacity to form the intent to commit the crime (mens rea).  Nothing these experts have pointed to defeats that. Even if the defendant is diagnosed as a “one person DSM” category, did  he have free will to form intent?

2. Isn’t failing to recognize and get treated for a personality disorder an aggravating circumstance, rather than a mitigating one?

The other defense theory is that the defendant lacked mens rea because he had a long history of untreated mental illness.  So he was a kicked puppy who was damaged, and failed to seek help to prevent his harmful behavior.  This is supposedly a mitigating factor. And, it’s the ex-wife’s fault  – she should have forced him to get treatment! (I’ll ignore that bit of stupidity).

So. . why is refusing to get treated a mitigating factor, why isn’t it an aggravating factor?

Why should we reward continued atrocious personality diordered behavior with a step down in charges or sentencing? If this individual is so disordered, shouldn’t he be locked up in the hospital for the criminally insane for an unspecified period of time (rather than in the general prison population for a defined sentence)?

Is this like the “every dog gets one free bite” rule? Even in California dogs don’t get one free bite, whether they were kicked as puppies or not.

So my questions: 1) Even if someone is whacked out on a severe personality disorder, don’t they still have free will sufficient to form criminal mens rea? and 2) Isn’t having untreated mental illness where there’s an intentional refusal to get treatment an aggravating circumstance, rather than a mitigating circumstance, because that is an additional layer of bad intent on top of an already criminal bad intent when committing the crime?

This judge isn’t managing this case well at all. If I were judge, I wouldn’t have allowed any of those bozo expert witnesses.  Junk science, I’d rule.  I’d want an fMRI expert from MIT across the river, a geneticist to see if the defendant has the capacity to form human attachment (re: vasopressin alleles and the like), and testimony from the child.

Now that would make a good trial AND maybe some justice.

2.  California Supreme Court and same-sex marriage.  This is an arbitrary and capricious distinction for denying equal protection. (See here).

So, if you want the rights and obligations of California’s Family Laws,  one party must have the anatomical sexual equipment that the other lacks.

Puhleeze. Dumb, dumb, dumb.

What’s LA county office of marriage licenses gonna do, ask people to pull down their pants?  What if you have two x chromosomes, yet male anatomical plumbing? And why does this even relate to formation of a partnership? In general, the California Family Code points to the California Corporations Code and says the fiduciary rules of a partnership apply as between spouses.  What does male or female anatomy have to do with that? Nothing. Even for procreation.  And procreation is not a requirement last time I checked the marriage statutes. Do you need particular anatomy to form an LLC? No. And, after all, under the California Family Code, it’s all a financial deal, no fault divorce, and once you’re married, you can do as you please, even if you then become a different gender.

But none of that even matters. What matters is the ability to bond with another human being.  The ability to form a binding contract.

You have to be 18, and able to contract. I get that. Do you need the anatomy that your partner lacks? No.  Not really.

A better distinction, if you want to get all biological about it, is whether the partners in the marriage are capable of forming any kind of bond via affiliative neuro-molecules at all: are they mountain voles or prairie voles? Forget the reproductive plumbing, if you don’t have the neural wiring to actually commit when you say “I do” then there is a fraud, and the marriage contract is void ab initio.  So it boils down to probably vasopressin receptor alleles, at the first instance. Or at least that ’s something to consider. Reproductive anatomy is irrelevant as far as I’m aware on whether you are biologically capable of forming social bonds. Reproductive anat0my isn’t even a good proxy.

California Supreme Court totally screwed up. The court kept the Constitutional amendment by  holding that horrifically ridiculous Prop 8 was properly on the ballot and the majority rules. If there was a prop correctly on the ballot that said, “only people of  a single race may marry each other” (that didn’t come out correctly, but you know), would they up hold that?  Cal Supremes, bad law, bad decisions, and Rose Bird is turning in her grave. Jerry Brown – fix this, it’s your fault.