What Now?
By Kenneth Bagnell
Perhaps I missed it. But the analysis of the trial of the horrific Anders Breivik (who in 2011 murdered 77 Norwegians) didn’t recognize what just might have been a compelling plea in his defense. Maybe his lawyers might have taken scholar Sam Harris seriously. If they did, who knows, they may have opened their defense with words as shocking as these: “Your honor, we will present evidence that what our client did was not his fault.” Shattering, no doubt. In fact, at a purely moral level, appalling.
After all Breivik , not only admitted he did the monstrous act, but after being sentenced — to 21 years which will probably become life which he merits– he then insulted the world by apologizing for not killing more. What do we make of that? Ironically even that may help justify the claim by Harris, a widely read neuroscientist, that a case can be made that people like Breivik are truly not at fault. Why? He didn’t act out of his own will. As Harris puts it in his latest book Free Will, an excerpt from which I’ve read: “Free will is an illusion. Our wills are simply not of our own making. Thoughts and intentions emerge from background causes of which we are unaware and over which we have no conscious control.” Thereby, many neuroscientists, based on new but widening research are coming to a very frightening conclusion: people like Breivik act from ingrained impulses. This is most disconcerting: his psychopathic rampage, one way or another, was an act he couldn’t withstand.
The implication is profound. It means the day may not be far off when criminal lawyers in democratic countries rise in court to state that their client can’t be held responsible, because the evidence is in: he truly wasn’t responsible. It’s disconcerting, for if it’s apt, it applies not just to Breivik, but to others, not just widely known examples like Paul Barnardo, Robert Picton or Russell Williams. It must apply equally to countless others: child molesters, bank robbers, con artists all of whom make life miserable for millions. If it applies to some, it applies to all. I take absolutely no pleasure in making the point but it must be put on the public table.
Indeed, a few months ago it was actually put there: before a panel on TVO, Ontario’s commendable education channel. A group of scholars — medical specialists, social scientists and a senior criminal lawyer — discussed it. I sensed that the scholars accepted the emerging neuroscientific evidence. As for the criminal lawyer, he was truly concerned; beyond that he didn’t have a lot to add. He did say (as I recall), that the law has traditionally expected people with sociopathic tendencies, to curb them. In figurative terms, he seemed to shake his head, as if to say, given the evidence of science, he had no idea how, if the neuroscience evidence is right, the law would respond. Who can blame him? Maybe, despite the findings of people like Harris, society must continue to insist individuals will be held responsible, no matter what the origin of their dark impulses. But one way or another, the law and the citizenry must get ready to discuss this matter and address it.
August 26, 2012.