Body: | The mental insanity plea and insanity defense:
"not criminally responsible for reasons of insanity"
(Denying personal responsibility for sin.)
Click to View
Click to View
Psychiatry damages society and individuals
The mental health system causes harm to both individuals and society as a whole.
Introduction:
One of the great evils of our modern time, is that wicked sinners
are escaping punishment for their crimes by being declared "not guilty by
reason of insanity". This is the result of the growing influence of the
psychiatry industry. It was not this way even 50 years ago since more and
more sinners are getting away with murder.
"When a psychologist or psychiatrist testifies during a defendant's
competency hearing, the psychologist or psychiatrist shall wear a
cone-shaped hat that is not less than two feet tall. The surface of the hat
shall be imprinted with stars and lightning bolts. Additionally, a
psychologist or psychiatrist shall be required to don a white beard that is
not less than 18 inches in length, and shall punctuate crucial elements of
his testimony by stabbing the air with a wand. Whenever a psychologist or
psychiatrist provides expert testimony regarding a defendant's competency,
the bailiff shall contemporaneously dim the courtroom lights and administer
two strikes to a Chinese gong." (Wizard's Hat Amendment, New Mexico Senator
Duncan Scott, 1995)
Psychologists view mental patients as victims, deny personal
responsibility and look for an outside perpetrator.
"When a defendant pleads insanity to a charge of murder and when the
fact that he committed the murder is not contested, the psychiatric expert
is expected to testify about the mental state of the defendant not at the
time of his examination of the "patient," but at the time when the
defendant committed the crime, typically many months before. In the Cromer
case, the interval between the crime and the defense psychiatrists'
examination of the defendant was approximately ten months. Psychiatrists
regard this practice as medically sound and scientific, and courts and
society accept it as similar to expert testimony given by other medical
specialists, for example forensic pathologists. I regard the practice as
the epitome of junk science and refuse to participate in it. In the first
place, there is no objective test for mental illness, as there is for
melanoma or pneumonia. What psychiatrists pretentiously call an
"examination" is a conversation with the subject and observation of his
behavior." (The Medicalization Of Everyday Life, Thomas Szasz, 2007 AD, p
106)
England passed a law in 1714 AD, which defined all homeless beggars
as being insane. This further illustrates that the insane were not
differentiated from other dependant beggars and vagrants. But this strange
law was a method of legally jailing street people who had committed no
crime (except vagrancy and begging itself which were illegal). By defining
all beggars as "insane", it provided a new legal method of restricting a
person's freedom from being thrown in jail without committing a crime. It
is one of the earliest versions of the "not responsible for reasons of
insanity" idea which deemed the insane needed other's to take control of
them in order to "clean up the streets of street beggars". "In 1714, an
Act of Parliament for the first time took up the subject of "the more
effectual punishing [of] such rogues, vagabonds, sturdy beggars, and
vagrants," calling for their confinement insofar as they were "furiously
mad,"" (Madmen and the Bourgeoisie, Klaus Doerner, 1969 AD, p 20)
"Krafft-Ebing (1840-1902) was an early practitioner of the art of
transforming, with the aid of Latin and a medical diploma, behaviors
considered sinful into sicknesses." (Psychiatry: The Science of Lies,
Thomas Szasz, 2008 AD, p 9)
In 1815 AD, Franz Gall, founder of phrenology, taught that since a
persons mental and moral characteristics are determined by the shape of the
skull he was born with, criminals really couldn't be blamed for their
crimes. This thinking is seen today in the insanity plea and chemical
evolutionary psychiatrists. "In criminology he advocated reform by
re-education rather than punishment and suggested at a time when the
criminal was thought to be made and not born, that there were degrees of
responsibility proportionate to innate propensities which could also be
determined by craniological examination. In this he anticipated much of
Lombroso's work at the end of the century as well as the concept of
irresistible impulse and diminished responsibility." (300 years of
Psychiatry, Richard Hunter, 1963, p 711) (The Physiognomical System of
Franz Joseph Gall Johann Gaspar Spurzheim, phrenologists, phrenology, 1815
AD)
In 1835 AD, James Cowles Prichard, Doctor, pioneered to the
detriment of mankind, the idea of "moral insanity" so that criminals would
not pay for their crimes. As the term "moral insanity" infers, a disease of
the body causes someone to commit immoral acts (crimes) without any traces
of delusion, paranoia or schizophrenia. "I have described a form of mental
derangement, under the title of moral insanity, consisting in disorder of
the moral affections and propensities, without any symptom of illusion or
error impressed on the understanding". In a page out of modern chemical
psychiatry, Prichard ascribes as many different kinds of moral insanity as
sins listed in the Bible: "the varieties of moral insanity are perhaps as
numerous as the modifications of feeling or passion in the human mind" So
Prichard has moral insanity varieties like "theft", "murder", "ponzi stock
market scheming" etc. Prichard, like psychiatrists today, believed that
insane people were forced to commit crimes like mal-adjusted chemical
robots: "A propensity to theft is often a feature of moral insanity, and
sometimes it is its leading if not the sole characteristic . . . There is
reason to believe that this species of insanity has been the real source of
moral phenomena of an anomalous and unusual kind, and of certain
perversions of natural inclination which excite the greatest disgust and
abhorrence" Prichard believes that it is the disease forcing the sinful
behaviour upon an otherwise model citizen: "There are instances of insanity
in which the whole disease, or at least the whole of its manifestations,
has consisted in a liability to violent fits of anger breaking out without
cause" He has his eye on murderers who he believes are forced by disease to
kill: "Various cases are on record in which homicides and other atrocious
acts have been committed by persons of morose and wayward habits, given up
to sullen abstraction, or otherwise differing in their propensities and
dispositions from the ordinary character of mankind." We do not understand
why psychiatrists are always wanting to excuse sinful behaviour on the
basis of insanity. "In this form of moral derangement the disordered
condition of the mind displays itself in a want of self-government, in
continual excitement, an unusual expression of strong feelings, in
thoughtless and extravagant conduct". Prichard's primary goal is to promote
the insanity plea so that physically sick people driven to criminal
activity, are excused: He describes his desire for criminals to be excused:
"lessening culpability", "maintain a plea on the ground of insanity in this
country, with a view to the removing culpability in a criminal accusation"
and "abolishing all capital punishments". We see exactly this today in case
after case, like Andrea Yates who drowned her 5 kids because she was
diagnosed with postpartum depression. Satan is behind this trend of
excusing sinners from the consequences of their sins. (A Treatise on
Insanity and Other Disorders Affecting the Mind, James Cowles Prichard,
1835 AD)
The "insanity defense" was first used in 1843, when Daniel
McNaughtan attempted to assassinate the British Prime Minister Robert Peel.
The U.S. court system started using this British case as a legal precedent.
Of course this was fuelled by the fathers of psychiatry in Britain!
Strangely, John Hinckley Jr., got away with attempted murder in 1981 when
with his assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan, but deviant sex
practitioner, pedophilic, cannibalistic murderer Jeffrey Dahmer was found
to be totally sane! Recently a wife shoots her husband in the back while he
sleeps and she gets away with murder because of Post-traumatic stress
disorder".
There is no exception in the Bible for sin based upon mental
illness. God nowhere excuses our actions because we were psychotic,
mentally ill, schizophrenic or delusional.
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, PMS, Reptilian Complex, Postpartum
Depression, Bad DNA, Chemical imbalance, Alcoholism.
Basically criminals know that they can "play the mentally ill game",
feed lies to their psychiatrist who are delighted with their new found
"legitimacy and respect" in court. They stand up before the world as
experts and reveal the details of what the criminal told them after many
hours of the criminal feeding them lies. This is what happened in the case
of Mary Winkler, who in 2006 shot her husband in the back while he slept in
cold blood. Without any evidence of abuse, except for what she told her
female pop-psychologist, Dr. Lynne Zager, in their weekly "girl talks",
Winkler is free of the murder charge today.
Every crime is viewed by some chemical/biological psychiatrists as
excusable for a wide range of reasons.
Evolutionists and humanists argue that we are mere chemicals,
without spirit or free will. Therefore we are not responsible for anything
we do.
"Disorders listed in the DSM are considered official. Although
murderers and rapists may be insane in colloquial terms, it is the
exclusion of those behaviors per se from the DSM that makes them simply
crimes while the included behaviors of pedophilia and kleptomania are
mental disorders. A disorder's placement in the DSM lends official status
to a mental disorder, but some of these official disorders may not be valid
cases of mental illness." (The Journal of mind and behavior, Guy A. Boysen,
v28, p 157-173)
"Fond of seeing themselves as bona fide physicians "saving lives,"
psychiatrists eagerly accepted the invitation of jurists to reduce the
frequency of executions by declaring some criminals sentenced to death to
be insane and therefore unfit to be punished. This practice, called the
"insanity defense," also results in the incarceration of the offender, in a
prison called a "mental hospital."' The insanity defense and civil
commitment are psychiatry's two paradigmatic practices. Without them,
(coercive) psychiatry would lose its social function and disappear."
(Psychiatry: The Science of Lies, Thomas Szasz, 2008 AD, p 65)
A. Examples of "not Guilty by insanity"
Church of Christ preacher's wife shoots husband in the back while he slept!
Get out of jail card: "Post-traumatic stress disorder"
In 2006, Mary Winkler shot her husband in the back while he slept in cold blood. They recovered "77 shotgun pellets" from her husband, who was a good preacher and upstanding citizen in Selmer Tennessee for a local church of Christ.
Click to View
Click to View
Mary Winkler was knowingly involved in a cheque cashing fraud called "Nigerian scam" in the amount of $17,000. Mary Winkler is a wicked and evil woman who deserves the death sentence. Instead a pop-psychologist, Dr. Lynne Zager, argued she was both depressed and suffered from post-traumatic stress syndrome. Dr. Lynne Zager dreamed up the idea, without proof, that the "post-traumatic stress disorder", began at the death of her sister at age 13 and because of "years of abuse" at the hand of her husband. However the daughter testified that she had had never seen their dad mistreat their mother and the only evidence she gave of such abuse in court was her own words. Shockingly, the court accepted her testimony in the absence of any evidence. Incredibly, during the trial, she was out on bail and working as a waitress living the good life! She was sentenced to 210 days in the Western State Mental Health Facility in Bolivar, Tennessee. Being a victim is permission to murder? Of course Mary Winkler is a liar. She was evil and her husband never abused her. She made the whole thing up and a junk science psychologist named, Dr. Lynne Zager provided the "get out of jail free" card. 100% of the evidence of abuse was gathered by Zager from what Mary Winker told her in many therapy sessions after the murder. Unbelievable! Today Mary Winker is a "Black Widow" crawling around town as a free woman instead of hanging from a noose because of psychologist Lynne Zager who said she was not responsible for her actions.
Andrea Yates drowns her 5 children in bathtub
Get out of jail card: Postpartum depression
Click to View
Andrea Yates escaped both death and jail because he was not responsible for drowning her 5 children because she suffered from postpartum depression. Since January 2007, Yates vacations in the Kerrville low security Texas state mental hospital.
PMS defense
Geraldine K. Richter, 42, an orthopedic surgeon who works in Fairfax County, was driving a red 1988 BMW from a friend's house about 10:35 p.m. last Thanksgiving when a state trooper noticed the car was straddling the white broken line on the Dulles Toll Road, according to court records.
"The trooper stopped the swerving BMW on Thanksgiving night and noticed a strong odor of alcohol on the breath of the woman who was driving her children home from a dinner party. When the trooper asked the driver how much she had to drink, the driver identified herself as "a doctor" and told the trooper that it was none of his "damn business." The trooper then asked her to place her hands on top of her head, but instead she tried to kick him in the groin. According to the trooper, she then began to yell: "You son of a [expletive]; you [expletive] can't do this to me; I'm a doctor. I hope you [expletive] get shot and come into my hospital so I can refuse to treat you, or if any other trooper gets shot, I will also refuse to treat them." After being arrested, the doctor was asked to take a Breathalyzer test, whereupon she kicked the machine. When she finally agreed to take the test, she failed it. She was then charged with drunken driving. The doctor's defense was that she was afflicted with premenstrual syndrome (PMS). Her lawyer argued that women absorb alcohol more quickly during their premenstrual cycle and that women with PMS became more irritable and hostile than other people. The Virginia judge apparently agreed with this argument and acquitted the woman. It is the first known instance of a PMS acquittal in this country and may serve as a precedent for future cases. The doctor and her lawyer were ecstatic over their victory. ... We live in an age when everybody tries to blame someone or something for their failures. Several years ago there was the "Twinkie defense." And then there was the "TV made me do it" excuse. Now it's raging hormones. This well-educated doctor should have realized that during the premenstrual part of her cycle, she behaves differently, and she should have taken precautions against breaking the law. Surely her PMS did not come on suddenly without previous manifestations. Her acquittal sends a doubly dangerous message. First, that our hormones are beyond our control and that we are not responsible for how they manifest themselves. And second, that women with premenstrual problems are somehow less reliable and less predictable than other people. Neither is true. The PMS defense is a setback for feminism, especially when used in a case like the surgeon's. She ought to take responsibility for her own actions. And if her hormones are indeed beyond her control, her patients should be made aware of that dangerous reality. She can't have it both ways." (The PMS Defense Feminist Setback., In The Abuse Excuse: And Other Cop-outs, Sob Stories and Evasions of Responsibility, Alan M. Dershowitz, 1994 AD)
"WASHINGTON -- America's first successful criminal defense based on premenstrual syndrome may have helped a Virginia surgeon avoid a drunken-driving conviction, but it has also revived controversy over the validity of making a courtroom issue of the monthly physical and psychological changes reported by many women. "It hurts our credibility," said Grace Burke, the prosecutor who lost the recent case. "I'm sure men are just shaking their heads at this." Dr. Geraldine K. Richter, a 42-year-old orthopedic surgeon, was acquitted June 4 by District Judge Robert J. Smith. Stopped for driving erratically while transporting her three children, Dr. Richter used abusive language and tried to kick a state trooper in the groin, the officer testified. Dr. Richter flunked a Breathalyzer test for blood-alcohol content. Her lawyer, David Sher, used a two-pronged defense to raise what the judge called a reasonable doubt of intoxication. One expert witness said that the blood-alcohol reading was skewed higher because Dr. Richter had held her breath. Dr. Emine Cay, a gynecologist, testified that Dr. Richter's conduct was consistent with PMS. A surprisingly rare legal claim in light of the widespread public awareness of the cyclical malady, Dr. Richter's reliance on PMS to excuse her behavior is dividing feminists, lawyers and health care professionals. "It's fair that PMS should be admissible in a court of law, because really, for many women, there's nothing they can do to control it," said Gloria Allred, a California attorney active on women's legal issues. Conversely, "The case sounds like what I'm scared of -- the use of a psychiatric diagnosis to excuse inexcusable behavior," said Dr. Nada Stotland, a University of Chicago psychiatrist. She is chairwoman of an American Psychiatric Association study of whether severe PMS should be officially listed as a mental illness. Judge Smith drew criticism from feminists fearful that a renaissance of old myths about "raging hormones" could deny women high-level jobs or child custody. "This decision just gives ammunition to people who want to deny women particular jobs," said Shirley Sagawa of the National Women's Law Center. "It reinforces the stereotypes that a lot of people have about PMS -- that there is a certain time of the month when women become completely irrational and dangerous." (Successful PMS defense in Virginia case revives debate, Baltamore Sun, June 16, 1991)
"A forty-two-year-old female orthopedic surgeon, working in a Virginia suburb of Washington, D.C., is arrested for drunken driving. She resists arrest, refuses to take a breath or blood test, curses and kicks the police. Taken into custody, she finally consents to take a breath test and registers 0.13, over the 0.10 legal limit for blood alcohol. "At trial she maintained that the circumstances of her behavior at the time of her arrest were a result of PMS [premenstrual syndrome]." She was acquitted." (Controversy Follows DWI Acquittal Based on Premenstrual Syndrome Defense, Richard Karel, Psychiatric News 26, September 6, 1991, p 16-18)
The trial of white supremacist Darlin Cromer where biopsychiatrists argued she should be found not guilty for the premeditated murder of a 5 year old Negro boy.
Thomas Szasz believes a person should be free to act in any way (dress up like big bird) or believe anything they want (pink elephants talk to them), without interference or labeling or being forced into treatment against their will. However, if a person breaks the law, like habitually disturbing the peace, Szasz believes they should be charged in criminal/civil courts and stand trial before a judge and cast in jail. Szasz has written countless excellent books, but we have selected his testimony in the trial of Darlin Cromer as the best way to hear Szasz views in action in his own words. On February 5, 1980, a white supremacist named Darlin Cromer murdered a 5 year old Negro boy, then boasted about it to police deputy Dorothy Soto, shortly after her arrest, "It is the duty of every white woman to kill a nigger child, "I've already killed mine." Cromer had a 20 year diagnosis as a schizophrenic. At the trial four psychiatric experts testified that she was insane and should be found not guilty for reason of insanity and belonged in a hospital, not a prison. When the prosecution called Szasz to offer his opinion whether Cromer suffered from anything, he answered: "[My] opinion is that she was suffering from the consequences of having lived a life very badly, very stupidly. Very evilly; that from the time of her teens, for reasons which I don't know, she had, whatever she had done, she has done very badly. She was a bad student. There is no evidence that she was a particularly good daughter, sister. She was a bad wife. She was a bad mother. She was a bad employee insofar as she was employable. Then she started to engage [in taking] illegal drugs, then she escalated to illegal assault, and finally she committed this murder. ... Life is a task. You either cope with it or it gets you ... If you do not know how to build, you can always destroy. These are the people that destroy us in society, our society, and other people." (Trial testimony of Thomas Szasz, Darlin June Cromer, November 1980) At this trial, four psychiatrists testified that Cromer was a certified lunatic who should not be punished for her crimes. One of them was Donald Lunde, among the most highly respected forensic psychiatrists in the USA. It was an epic David vs. Goliath battle of four against Szasz in court. On 17 January 1981, Cromer was convicted of first degree murder which started the chemical psychiatry establishment squealing in unison like stuck pigs, demanding a retrial and launching personal attacks on Szasz. They got their wish, but the conviction was upheld at retrial. The stinging humiliation biologic psychiatry suffered with the guilty verdict because of the testimony of Szasz,
Faked Insanity plea!
The case of "Operator" (Faked Insanity plea: Factitious disorder: F68.1)
B. The view of Psychiatrists and evolutionists:
"biological psychiatry tends to 'blame the body' for disturbed
behavior, rather than the family or society. This perspective lets the
social surround escape unscathed from any blame or responsibility, no
matter how much psychological disorder is in its midst that is in fact
caused by the so-called patient's experiences in that family or society"
(Pseudoscience in Biological Psychiatry, Colin A. Ross, M.D., & Alvin Pam,
Ph.D., 1995, p. 3).
Chemical/biological psychiatrists believe in a neo-phrenology which
takes the view that different parts of the brain control various feelings,
choices and thoughts: "As scientists continue to unravel and decipher the
contents of the human genome, perhaps there will come a time when we will
have knowledge of precisely which genes are responsible or those parts of
the brain that give rise to religiosity and spiritual consciousness. In
order to accommodate this new field, the sciences may have to look toward a
whole new discipline-a new geno-theology-for its answers." (Alper, "God"
Part of the Brain, p 134, footnote)
Carl Sagan comments on the "social implications" of the Triune Brain
of evolution and humanism:
"I want to be very clear about the social implications of the contention
that reptilian brains influence human actions. If bureaucratic behavior is
controlled at its core by the R-complex, does this mean there is no hope
for the human future? In human beings, the neo-cortex represents about 85
percent of the brain, which is surely some index of its importance compared
to the brainstem, R-complex and limbic system. Neuro-anatomy, political
history, and introspection all offer evidence that human beings are quite
capable of resisting the urge to surrender to every impulse of the
reptilian brain. There is no way, for example, in which the Bill of Rights
of the U.S. Constitution could have been recorded, much less conceived, by
the R-complex. It is precisely our plasticity, our long childhood, that
prevents a slavish adherence to genetically preprogrammed behavior in human
beings more than in any other species. But if the triune brain is an
accurate model of how human beings function, it does no good whatever to
ignore the reptilian component of human nature, particularly our
ritualistic and hierarthical behavior; On the contrary, the model may help
us to understand what human beings are about. (I wonder, for example,
whether the ritual aspects of many psychotic illnesses-e.g., hebephrenic
schizophrenia-could be the result of hyperactivity of some center in the
R-complex, or of a failure of some neocortical site whose function is to
repress or override the R-complex. I also wonder whether the frequent
ritualistic behavior in young children is a consequence of the still-
incomplete development of their neocortices.)" (The Dragons of Eden, Carl
Sagan, 1986 AD, p64)
Rape is the way evolution wired the male brain and they are not
responsible: "Viewing rape as a module of the male brain is provocative
enough; but Thornhill and Palmer go on to propose, in the manner of
evolutionary psychologists, that many other aspects of rape are direct
adaptations. While they see rape as adaptive for men, they concede that it
is not so for women, who suffer physical violence, emotional trauma,
possible alienation of their partner, and loss of their own evolved ability
to choose the best mate. Natural selection therefore gives women their own
adaptation: the post-rape trauma. "Psychological pain is an adaptation that
functions against such [reproductive] losses by focusing on the causes of
the losses. The result is that attention is directed toward ways of dealing
with current circumstances, given the loss, and of avoiding a repetition of
events that caused the loss." (As I have noted, others have proposed a
similar explanation for the evolution of depression. I doubt, though,
whether rape victims and depressives use their trauma so productively.) And
since the partner of a rape victim may be unsure whether a subsequent child
is his, Thornhill and Palmer propose yet another direct adaptation: male
suspicion about their mate's claim that she was raped. That, too, is
biologically mandated. Finally, in a theory almost unbelievably grandiose,
Thornhill and Palmer suggest that the opposition to their theories is
itself based on evolution. Our brains, they say, are so much the product of
evolution that they have been preprogrammed with a set of beliefs, one of
which is a reluctance to believe explanations involving evolution: "Evolved
psychological intuitions about behavioral causation can mislead individuals
into believing that they know as much as experts do about proximate human
motivation." Don't like the theory? Trust the "experts," who have painfully
overcome their aversion to evolution. (This is one of the ways in which the
new evolutionary psychologists resemble the old Marxists: there is no place
to stand outside their system of meaning, except for the privileged place
where they themselves stand.)" (Jerry A. Coyne, Evolutionary biologist,
"The Fairy Tales of Evolutionary Psychology," New Republic, March 4, 2000)
"Amid this debacle--for A Natural History of Rape is truly an
embarrassment to the field--I am somewhat consoled by the parallels between
Freudianism and evolutionary psychology. Freud's views lost credibility
when people realized that they were not at all based on science, but were
really an ideological edifice, a myth about human life, that was utterly
resistant to scientific refutation. By judicious manipulation, every
possible observation of human behavior could be (and was) fitted into the
Freudian framework. The same trick is now being perpetrated by the
evolutionary psychologists. They, too, deal in their own dogmas, and not in
propositions of science. Evolutionary psychology may have its day in the
sun, but versions of the faith such as Thornhill and Palmer's will
disappear when people realize that they are useless and unscientific."
(Jerry A. Coyne, Evolutionary biologist, "The Fairy Tales of Evolutionary
Psychology," New Republic, March 4, 2000)
C. The reason Activist Judges who favour rehabilitation instead of hard
jail time:
Bill O'Reilly is a champion of exposing activist judges who favour
rehabilitation instead of hard jail time. What Bill O'Reilly has never
understood or exposed, is the underlying bias that make these judges tick.
These activists judges are always humanists, atheists or evolutionists!
"The reptilian brain is coming out in them, they can't help it!"
These activists judges are always humanists, atheists or evolutionists!
Bill O'Reilly calls them "activist judges" or "secular progressive". More specific, they are humanists, atheists or evolutionists! This is the underlying bias that Mr. O has failed to expose on his number 1 rated News program! Bill is bloviating against the symptom while ignoring the underlying cause.
Click to View
This false view of the evolution of the brain, has led to social
reforms where judged and courts excuse sin and crime as an "over active
Reptilian-Complex" part of the brain. This is the cost of the false theory
of evolution to society.
Regarding personal legal/moral responsibility, Richard Dawkins
explains the philosophical foundation for why some judges, the ACLU and
other special interest groups do not believe that pedophiles, rapists,
murderers and all mentally ill people are not responsible for their crimes
and sins: "As scientists, we believe that human brains, though they may not
work in the same way as man-made computers, are as surely governed by the
laws of physics. When a computer malfunctions, we do not punish it. We
track down the problem and fix it, usually by replacing a damaged
component, either in hardware or software." (Richard Dawkins in response to
the World Question Center 2006 question, "What is your dangerous idea?")
"Psychiatrists claim, and most people now believe, that mental
illness causes addiction, crime, suicide, and countless other acts we abhor
or fear. Therein lies the virtually limitless power of mental illness and
psychiatry to undermine the idea of responsibility and subvert justice."
(The Meaning of the Mind, Thomas Szasz, 1996 AD, p 110)
"In effect, we have inverted the Judeo-Christian image of man as
responsible moral agent and have recast it in the psychiatric image of man
as nonresponsible mental patient." (The Meaning of the Mind, Thomas Szasz,
1996 AD, p 46)
"We operate on the principle that the laws of psychology that govern
behavior are really brain laws that operate on a materialist philosophy.
When Johnny can't read, there's an explanation in the brain. . . . when
Billy has murderous intent, there is explanation for Billy's murderous
intent. . . . Ultimately our plan constitutes a challenge to the societal
assessments that led to the principles of common law [based on the
presumption of free will]. (Neurophysiology, philolophy on collision
course"?, P. Cotton, JAMA 269, 1993 AD: 1485-86; quoting Michael Merzenich,
member of the Keck Center for Integrated Neuroscience at the University of
California)
"If we could go to death row and show that the inhabitants have
something wrong with their brains that could be fixed so they would become
peaceful, productive members of society, obviously that would and should
produce a tremendous change in the way we approach homicidal behavior."
(Neurophysiology, philosophy on collision course"? , P. Cotton, JAMA 269,
1993 AD: 1486; quoting Philip E. Johnson, a professor of criminal law at
the University of California in Berkeley)
There is no personal shame when you murder your wife or rape a 7
year old... you can't help it: "your behavior arises on its own - out of
your particular biologically given traits and your particular career
through life ... Your successes resulted from personal characteristics
given to you in their entirety by nature and nurture, combined with
circumstances in which you could express your talents. Likewise, your
failures arose not from some weakness of will that could have been
otherwise, but out of conditions which can be understood as the natural
unfolding of physical and psychological processes. Anyone with the same
internal and external circumstances would have done as well, or as badly.
Understanding this won't change the fact that you enjoy success and regret
failure, but it may loosen the grip of ego and ease the burden of
self-blame. (Personal and Social Consequences, Center for Naturalism)
"individuals don't bear ultimate originative responsibility for
their actions, in the sense of being their first cause. Given the
circumstances both inside and outside the body, they couldn't have done
other than what they did ... naturalism [humanism] does call into question
the basis for retributive attitudes [hard jail time to fit the crime],
namely the idea that individuals could have done otherwise in the situation
in which their behavior arose and so deeply deserve punishment." (Center
for Naturalism, CFN, Tenets of Naturalism)
Next time you get angry that a judge gives a 4 time pedophile a
sentence of probation and "rehabilitation", now you know why. The judge is
an evolutionist that believes the pedophile is merely acting out his
genetic instincts and cannot help his actions because the reptile is coming
out of him. (R-complex).
Mass murders, rapists and pedophiles suffering from mental illnesses
such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder once jailed. But now we are told
that "scientific and psychiatric research", has proven these people were
not criminals, they suffered from a disease! They couldn't help it! They
had broken brains... or an over active "R-complex".
Bill Clinton was the evolutionary alpha male! "the lustful activity
of Bill Clinton was explained--or explained away--by various evolutionary
psychologists as the behavior of an "alpha male."" (Jerry A. Coyne,
Evolutionary biologist, "The Fairy Tales of Evolutionary Psychology," New
Republic, March 4, 2000)
Thieves, rapists and murders are not responsible: "There is no
kernel of independent moral agency.... We are not, as philosopher Daniel
Dennett puts it, "moral levitators" that rise above circumstances in our
choices, including choices to rob, rape, or kill." (Tom W Clark, Director,
Center for Naturalism, CFN)
Criminals are not responsible: "Responsibility and morality: From a
naturalistic perspective, behavior arises out of the interaction between
individuals and their environment, not from a freely willing self that
produces behavior independently of causal connections. Therefore
individuals don't bear ultimate originative responsibility for their
actions, in the sense of being their first cause. Given the circumstances
both inside and outside the body, they couldn't have done other than what
they did. Nevertheless, we must still hold individuals responsible, in the
sense of applying rewards and sanctions, so that their behavior stays more
or less within the range of what we deem acceptable. This is, partially,
how people learn to act ethically. Naturalism doesn't undermine the need or
possibility of responsibility and morality, but it places them within the
world as understood by science. However, naturalism does call into question
the basis for retributive attitudes, namely the idea that individuals could
have done otherwise in the situation in which their behavior arose and so
deeply deserve punishment." (Center for Naturalism, CFN, Tenets of
Naturalism)
"As a result, the study of man as moral agent became "unscientific"
and unfashionable and was replaced by the "scientific" study of man as
(mental) patient whose behavior is determined by the chemicals in his brain
and the genes in his body. The moral-philosopher thus ceded his mandate to
the expert in neuroscience; respect, justice, and the rule of law were
replaced by compassion, tort litigation, and medical ethics; and the
Welfare State was absorbed into the Therapeutic State." (The Meaning of the
Mind, Thomas Szasz, 1996 AD, p 140)
Criminals should not blame themselves: "Blame and envy: Just as your
own behavior can be understood as the natural unfolding of physical and
psychological processes, so can the behavior of others, and your attitudes
toward them might change in the light of this understanding. Seeing exactly
how someone got to be the way they are, and knowing that their virtues and
faults arise out of circumstances, not from an autonomous, non-physical
agent, (spirit) can help to reduce the time spent on unproductive blaming
and envy." (Personal and Social Consequences, Center for Naturalism)
"We use one type of explanation for the behaviors of individuals we
consider mentally healthy, and another type of explanation for the
behaviors of individuals we consider mentally ill: we attribute normal or
sane behavior to reasons (choices, decisions), and abnormal or insane
behavior to causes (diseases, physical and chemical processes in the
brain). This divided approach is patently fallacious." (The Meaning of the
Mind, Thomas Szasz, 1996 AD, p xiii)
No personal responsibility for the mentally ill: "Mental illness,
addiction, obesity, and other behavioral disorders are too often
misunderstood as failures of will. Instead, we can understand dysfunctional
behavior as fully caused by the interaction of genetic and environmental
factors. This understanding reduces the stigma associated with behavioral
disorders, while pointing the way toward effective treatment. Naturalism
supports the development of psychotherapeutic and self-change techniques
that apply a causal view of behavior." (Personal and Social Consequences,
Center for Naturalism)
No jail for criminals: "Punishment: Since the retributive
justification for punishment is based largely on the notion that behavior
is originated by a causally autonomous self, the motive to impose such
punishment may diminish once it is seen that such a self does not exist. In
particular, support may drop for punitive measures such as the death
penalty or prison sentences without rehabilitative amenities. More
attention will be paid to the conditions which create crime, and to
approaches that redeem offenders instead of further brutalizing them."
(Personal and Social Consequences, Center for Naturalism)
"As more and more (mis)behaviors traditionally attributed to
personal choice were attributed to diseases of the mind, mental diseases
were attributed to brain diseases, today specifically to "chemical
imbalances" causing neurotransmitters to malfunction." (The Meaning of the
Mind, Thomas Szasz, 1996 AD, p 46)
Free will is a myth! We are robots with no free will. Nobody is
personally responsible for anything! "If persons are not self-made, but
entirely the product of genetic and environmental conditions, this means
that their virtues and faults are not a matter of will or self-chosen
character. Rather, individuals are shaped by circumstances that can
themselves be modified to produce people that are happier, more productive,
more creative, and less needy. The myth of ultimate self-determination
(contra-causal free will) blocks the design of a more humane society by
blaming persons for their shortcomings instead of understanding the
conditions that create them." (Personal and Social Consequences, Center for
Naturalism)
"John B. Watson, the founder of behaviorism, and B. F. Skinner, its
most prominent spokesman, both denied the existence of the mind.
Nevertheless, both supported the use of psychiatric power based on
psychiatric diagnosis. In 1913, Watson declared that there is no thought
and no mind: "What the psychologists have hitherto called thought is in
short nothing but talking to ourselves." (Psychology as a behaviorist views
it, J. B. Watson, Psychological review, 21, 1913. also Behaviourism, J. B.
Watson,1930, p6) Logically, this view demanded that he view mental illness
as a metaphor. Instead, he embraced the psychiatric fashion of defining
social deviance as mental disease and supported psychiatric practices, the
more coercive the better." (The Meaning of the Mind, Thomas Szasz, 1996 AD,
p135)
22. "B. F. Skinner was a devout materialist and reductionist, a belief he
supported by preaching the doctrine that freedom and responsibility were
illusions due to ignorance. "The hypothesis that man is not free," he
explained in Science and Human Behavior, "is essential to the application
of the scientific method to the study of human behavior. The free inner man
who is held responsible . . . is only a prescientific substitute for the
kinds of causes which are discovered in the course of scientific analysis."
(The Meaning of the Mind, Thomas Szasz, 1996 AD, p 136)
23. "To sum up, the belief that men cannot really choose to reduce their
arousal, whether based on ancient traditions or modern materialism, is
simply mistaken. Penal codes that hold men accountable for sexual assault
are based in neural reality, not simple-minded idealism." (The Spiritual
Brain, Mario Beauregard Ph.D., Neuroscientist, 2007, p133)
24. "There is no kernel of independent moral agency.... We are not, as
philosopher Daniel Dennett puts it, "moral levitators" that rise above
circumstances in our choices, including choices to rob, rape, or kill."
(Tom W Clark, Director, Center for Naturalism, CFN)
25. "The self: As strictly physical beings, we don't exist as immaterial
selves, either mental or spiritual, that control behavior. Thought,
desires, intentions, feelings, and actions all arise on their own without
the benefit of a supervisory self, and they are all the products of a
physical system, the brain and the body. The self is constituted by more or
less consistent sets of personal characteristics, beliefs, and actions; it
doesn't exist apart from those complex physical processes that make up the
individual. It may strongly seem as if there is a self sitting behind
experience, witnessing it, and behind behavior, controlling it, but this
impression is strongly disconfirmed by a scientific understanding of human
behavior." (Center for Naturalism, CFN, Tenets of Naturalism)
D. Benjamin Rush vs. Johann Heinroth:
Both Benjamin Rush and Johann Heinroth were Bible believing mad
doctors who live at the same time. Heinroth believed insanity was caused by
sin, life choices and circumstances, and Rush believed insanity was caused
by bloated blood vessels in the brain. Both believed that lying, for
example, was a correctable sin where the person has complete control over
the lying. However, both Rush and Heinroth believed that there was a state
of insanity were lying became involuntary and they should not be held
accountable in civil court for their crimes. Whereas Rush called the state
of being "not cognizable by law" a disease, Heinroth simply called it a
state of "unfree".
"In short, the semantics of early psychiatry contains unmistakable
signs of the view that insane behavior is immoral behavior; that insane
conduct is often illegal conduct; that if insane conduct is illegal, the
individual committing the prohibited act is not legally responsible for it;
and that the concept of insanity is susceptible to both juridical and
medical definitions." (Coercion as Cure, Thomas Szasz, 2007 AD, p 84)
Johann Heinroth: Heinroth takes the unusual position that although
man becomes mad on his own free will choices, once full insanity has set
in, the man becomes "unfree" and is no longer to be held responsible for
his crimes. This is the earliest concept of the insanity plea in Germany.
About 50 years later, the insanity plea was first used in England. "But we
must not forget that in a true mental disturbance each of these disorders
must occur to an extent equivalent to complete, permanent loss of freedom
... For the moment at which unfreedom makes its appearance and clearly
manifests itself by unnatural, i.e., unreasonable, actions, behavior,
words, glances, or gestures, that is the moment of this procreation. From
this moment on, the man has lost claim to the kingdom of freedom, to the
kingdom of the spirits, at least for as long as he remains in this cycle.
He is an automaton: his thinking, his sensation, his activity, proceed in a
mechanical manner, no matter whether it appears as if they were determined
by himself. They are in fact determined by urgent impulses only, if they
are controlled at all." He argues that the murderer who is insane cannot be
held responsible for reason of insanity: "A murderous or a predatory
attack, or a public insult and abuse can set a man entirely beside himself;
and this is confusion in the highest degree. ... This condition is unfree,
and a man cannot be held responsible for the consequences thereof, except
if it can be proved that the condition was self-inflicted, or else that he
could have prevented it from arising. ... The state of a compulsive urge
occurs if somebody, without being confused, is still unable to resist the
urge to commit an illegal action. The urge itself is called compulsive,
since it is not voluntary but is guided by a compulsive stimulus. Heinroth
states that the mad doctor alone determines if a person is "unfree" and can
invoke the insanity plea. "This will be easy for the physician to determine
once he has observed the type and the degree of the unfree state." Heinroth
has 9 type of insanity, all of which are unfree: "Insanity, Dementia, Rage,
Melancholia, Idiocy, Apathy, Insane melancholia, Confusion, Timidity"
(Textbook of Disturbances of Mental Life and Soul, Johann Heinroth, 1818
AD)
"In this condition the free will exists no more and is replaced by
complete and permanent loss of freedom. This condition prevails in diseases
commonly known as mental breakdown, aberrations of reason, madness,
diseases of temperament, mental diseases in general, etc. All these
diseases, however, much as their external manifestations may differ, have
this one feature in common, namely, that not only is there no freedom but
not even the capacity to regain freedom. The world-consciousness and the
self- consciousness are to a greater or lesser extent disturbed, confused,
or wholly extinct, while there is no room for the reasoned consciousness,
since free will, which is the receptacle of this consciousness, has died.
Thus, individuals in this condition exist no longer in the human domain,
which is the domain of freedom, but follow the coercion of internal and
external natural necessity. Rather than resembling animals, which are led
by a wholesome instinct, they resemble machines and are maintained by vital
laws in bodily life alone." (Textbook of Disturbances of Mental Life and
Soul, Johann Heinroth, 1818 AD)
Benjamin Rush: [insanity] "acts without a motive, by a kind of
involuntary power. Exactly the same thing takes place in this disease of
the will, that occurs when the arm or foot is moved convulsively without an
act of the will, and even in spite of it ... I have called it MORAL
DERANGEMENT. For a more particular account of this moral disease in the
will, the reader is again referred to a printed lecture delivered by the
author, in the university of Pennsylvania, in November 1810, upon the Study
of Medical Jurisprudence, in which the morbid operations of the will are
confined to two acts, viz. murder and theft. I have selected those two
symptoms of this disease (for they are not vices) from its other morbid
effects, in order to rescue persons affected with them from the arm of the
law, and to render them the subjects of the kind and lenient hand of
medicine. But there are several other ways, in which this disease in the
will discovers itself, that are not cognizable by law. I shall describe but
two of them. These are, LYING and DRINKING. 1. There are many instances of
persons of sound understandings, and some of uncommon talents, who are
affected with this LYING disease in the will. It disfers from exculpative,
fraudulent and malicious lying, in being influenced by none of the motives
of any of them. Persons thus diseased cannot speak the truth upon any
subject, nor tell the same story twice in the same way, nor describe any
thing as it has appeared to other people. Their falsehoods are seldom
calculated to injure any body but themselves, being for the most part of an
hyberbolical or boasting nature, but now and then they are of a mischievous
nature, and injurious to the characters and property of others. That it is
a corporeal disease, I infer from its sometimes appearing in mad people,
who are remarkable for veracity in the healthy states of their minds,
several instances of which I have known in the Pennsylvania Hospital.
Persons affected with this disease are often amiable in their tempers and
manners, and sometimes benevolent and charitable in their dispositions.
Lying, as a vice, is said to be incurable. The same thing may be said of it
as a disease, when it appears in adult life. It is generally the result. of
a defective education. It is voluntary in childhood, and becomes
involuntary, like certain muscular actions, from habit. Its only REMEDY is
bodily pain, inflicted by the rod, or confinement, or abstinence from food
; for children are incapable of being permanently influenced by appeals to
reason, natural affection, gratitude, or even a sense of shame. 2. The use
of strong drink is at first the effect of free agency. From habit it takes
place from necessity. That this is the case, I infer from persons who are
inordinately devoted to the use of ardent spirits being irreclaimable, by
all the considerations which domestic obligations, friendship, reputation,
property, and sometimes even by those which religion and the love of life,
can suggest to them. An instance of insensibility to the last, in an
habitual drunkard, occurred some years ago in Philadelphia. When strongly
urged, by one of his friends, to leave off drinking, he said, " Were a keg
of rum in one corner of a room, and were a cannon constantly discharging
balls between me and it, I could not refrain from passing before that
cannon, in order to get at the rum." (Medical Inquiries and Observations
Upon the Diseases of the Mind, Benjamin Rush 1812 AD)
"The REMEDIES for this disease have hitherto been religious and
moral, and they have sometimes cured it. They would probably have been more
successful, had they been combined with such as are of a physical nature.
For an account of several of them, the reader is referred to the first
volume of the author's Medical Inquiries and Observations. To that account
of physical remedies I shall add one more, and that is, the establishment
of a hospital in every city and town in the United States, for the
exclusive reception of hard drinkers. They are as much objects of public
humanity and charity, as mad people. They are indeed more hurtful to
society, than most of the deranged patients of a common hospital would be,
if they were set at liberty. Who can calculate the extensive influence of a
drunken husband or wife upon the property and morals of their families, and
of the waste of the former, and corruption of the latter, upon the order
and happiness of society ? Let it not be said, that confining such persons
in a hospital would be an infringement upon personal liberty, incompatible
with the freedom of our governments. We do not use this argument when we
confine a thief in a jail, and yet, taking the aggregate evil of the
greater number of drunkards than thieves into consideration, and the
greater evils which the influence of their immoral example and conduct
introduce into society than stealing, it must be obvious, that the safety
and prosperity of a community will be more promoted by confining them, than
a common thief. To prevent injustice or oppression, no person should be
sent to the contemplated hospital, or SOBER HOUSE, without being examined
and committed by a court, consisting of a physician, and two or three
magistrates, or commissioners appointed for that purpose. If the patient
possess property, it should be put into the hands of trustees, to take care
of it. Within this house the patient should be debarred the use of ardent
spirits, and drink only, for a while, such substitutes for them, as a
physician should direct. Tobacco, one of the provocatives of intemperance
in drinking, should likewise be gradually abstracted from them. Their food
should be simple, but for a while moderately cordial. They should be
employed in their former respective occupations, for their own, or for the
public benefit, and all the religious, moral, and physical remedies, to
which I have referred, should be employed at the same time, for the
complete and radical cure of their disease." (Medical Inquiries and
Observations Upon the Diseases of the Mind, Benjamin Rush 1812 AD)
Both Rush and Heinroth were wrong. A person will always be held
responsible for his actions.
Conclusion:
"An 1846 caricature by Honore Daumier (1808-1879) is an early
example of the commonsense insight into the truth about psychiatry as
excuse- making and social control. The scene is a prison cell. The unkempt
prisoner sits on a cot, his dandified lawyer standing before him. "What
really bothers me," says the prisoner, "is that I have been accused of
twelve robberies." "Twelve of them," replies the lawyer. "So much the
better. I will plead monomania." This joke has since become the everyday
reality of our age." (Psychiatry: The Science of Lies, Thomas Szasz, 2008
AD, p 18)
Evolutionists and humanists chemical/biological psychiatrists argue
that criminals are not responsible for any of their crimes. It is this
underlying bias that fuels the modern trend of giving child rapists and axe
murderers, little one hour talks of psychotherapy, rather than a lethal
injection.
Psychologists view mental patients as victims, deny personal
responsibility and look for an outside perpetrator.
The public doesn't understand the cause and effect between the
philosophy of evolutionists and chemical/biological psychiatrists and what
is happening in our courts today. We expose this evil and it needs to be
exposed by Bill O'Reilly on Fox News!
All men have a spirit and free will to chose right or wrong. When we
die, our spirit and "person" will continue to exist in the heavenly realm
consciously until the second coming of Christ.
The Bible says:
""For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and
forfeits his soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul? "For
the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels,
and will then repay every man according to his deeds." Matthew 16:26-27
"For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God. For it is
written, "As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to Me, And every
tongue shall give praise to God." So then each one of us will give an
account of himself to God." Romans 14:10-12
"people have been subjected to a relentless campaign of so-called
mental health education, indoctrinating them into the belief that mental
diseases are brain diseases, curable with chemicals. Thus, the ostensible
agenda of neuroscience is the quest for increased scientific understanding
of the brain; its real agenda, however, is to elevate to the level of
unquestioned "scientific fact" the doctrine that (mis)behavior is
biologically determined and that holding individuals responsible for their
(mis)behavior is unscientific. ... By replacing moral discourse about bad
behaviors with medical discourse about bad brains, it is precisely the
concept of responsibility that neuroscientists and other reductionists want
to destroy." (The Meaning of the Mind, Thomas Szasz, 1996 AD, p 94)
There is no "get out of judgement" card for sinners at the second
coming.
Click to View
By Steve Rudd: Contact the author for comments, input or corrections.
Send us your story about your experience with modern Psychiatry
Click to View
Go To Start: WWW.BIBLE.CA
|