If a brain tumor turns you into a pedophile, are you any less culpable for molesting your stepchild?

You’re getting into determinism here… I am of the belief that self control is largely an illusion and our physical form, from tumors to hormones, have complete control over our behavior. Does this mean everyone is blameless? Only in the most metaphysical sense. It is not practical to design a legal system such that no one can be blamed for anything, so we shouldn’t.

Still responsible, with mitigating circumstances. I am of the opinion that every child molester is mentally ill, and may not be able to help themselves. However, most of them could have told someone else the kind of thoughts they were having. Someone who could have helped them before they acted on those thoughts. Same with this case, when the underlying cause is a physical illness. He can’t help what he thinks, he may not even be able to stop himself from acting on the thoughts… but he knew it was wrong, and should have gone to someone about it before it ever went that far.

I just watched Sam Harris’ talk on Free Will last night. Very interesting talk, and very relevant.

I’d be interested to hear what our in-house philosophers and neuroscientists have to say about this.

I agree with with augustlan and Mariah on this one. However I find it interesting no one has mentioned the child in all of this. I understand our legal system is not a justice system in that you have to find justice and peace and the power to overcome from with in you. There is no penalization code that makes up for the immediate trauma or ripple effect.

I was not able to read the article at Slate.com because it took me to the main page rather then the article itself. Why was the child exposed to that a second time? It is not exactly unheard of that a a tumor will grow again once it has been excised. As well as the mental and psychological stresses of a child having to deal with emotions and not having the proverbial safe harbor.

Child molester’s are not allowed to be unsupervised with children, at the very least.

What you are implying by the focus of this post is the victim doesn’t even qualify as secondary but is not even relevant. That is dehumanization in full flower.

I think this is gross negligence on the part of the mother and the court system.

When it comes to something like this I believe society works on a premise that is flawed at best or an out and out fraud. People will want to say because he had sex with a child he is totally responsible even if it is clear a tumor is linked to it. People will in turn say it is more forgiving of the person who mows down three kids on bikes peddling to the Quickie Mart for a slushy because they were drunk, or the guy who blast his uncle at a BBQ over a flippant argument because he was drunk. They will also be more forgiving of the young man who broke into vehicles to steal valuables because he was high on something. Would these people do what they did if they were sober? For the most part they would not. People can understand that the man was responsible because he shot his uncle, they will not see he was more responsible than the guy with the tumor because a tumor can grow undetected (unless they were zapping his noggin with X-rays every other week. That is how the girl could get slaked twice by the man). The tumor was not ”willfully” obtained or created; unlike those who chose to be inebriated. Because the hurt is often not direct, as with the theft it is seen as less serious, even if there are 20 times the victims. I think in the story of the OP it should be handled as more of a tort than civil matter because a tumor was almost surely the cause of his actions and it was not set in motion by his actions and it could not readily be seen or detected.

Here’s the correct link to the article. Sorry about that.

I’m still a hard determinist myself. I see this and all human errors as glitches in a program of one form or another. All it means is that the soul is always blameless. And no, I don’t really believe in souls, but as a metaphor. A hungry bear who tries to eat my kids is equally as blameless at that level. Still, I would deal with the bear however I have to to protect my kids. Same with a man who has a tumor that makes him want to attack my children.

Is it fair that I attack a man because he has a tumor or childhood trauma or whatever else he might be afflicted with that is causing him to attack my kids? Well, hey, I’m a victim of my own flawed programming. If my puny brain can’t come up with a better way to protect my kids than to attack or imprison their attacker then the issue has come full circle.

This is a real tough one.

If I have just got done watching star trek or doing some thinking on ethics and morals, I am more likely to say they are not culpable. It comes down to the whole question of what makes you be you, and if you are changed, is it still you that did it.

If I have just got done watching a news report on a missing/abused kid, I am much more likely to say they knew fully well what they was doing, and should be slowly fed to wild animals.

The only thing in my life that is similar, is rage. I have a very very bad temper at times, and if I am pissed off enough, I will get the urge to mutilate and kill what is angering me. However, even with all the intense rage blinding me, I still keep it together and don’t go out and kill.

I can’t really imagine a pedophile having urges that are stronger than my rage. I am not at all secretive about my anger, it boils over and out of me, and is very obvious I am angry. However, pedophiles tend to be able to be secretive about it.

Unless the pedophile is openly molesting people in the park, and saying “what? what is the big deal?”, I would be inclined to say they know what they are doing, they know that it is wrong and what will happen if they are found out, and do it anyway.

I lean towards them being culpable.

I am not interested in over analyzing this sort of situation. I simply have more sympathy for the victim than the perpetrator, end of story. And that is true if the victim is 92 and the perp 18 or vice versa, it doesn’t matter, anti social behaviour deserves to be punished.

There is right and there is wrong. There are laws to, that enable a stable society. If he had murdered would he get off due to the tumor? I do understand that brain issues can cause undesirable behaviors, but that is what they are. So yes, he needs to be punished.

Brain tumors, the twinkie defense, whatever….it matters not if someones behavior is biologically based or just a byproduct of a fucked up psyche, consequences endure.
So maybe they go to a mental hospital instead of a penitentiary, just so long as they are locked away from society for good.