Gabriel Gifford’s Shooter Undergoing Federal Mental Makeover Before Trial

I thought I should throw in a commentary on Loughner’s four month federal chemical personality makeover now in process at the order of a federal judge. Obviously Loughner was guilty of shooting people in Arizona, yet the legal proceedings for adjudicating the process whereby the prosecution has custody of the defendant, has him psychiatrically evaluated by their own criteria, and then finds his mind incompetent to stand trial-a trial for-itself, and then orders the defendant to submit to months of chemical brain modification in order to make him conformal to court appearances and criteria for being a nice defendant seems a little dangerous for U.S. civil liberties.

The legal questions of it a crime occurred and if the person accused committed it should be separated from the question of why a defendant committed a crime. The defendant’s psychological state is a part of the curiosity of why the crime occurred. Those curious questions should be discovered if there is a reason to, after the trial determines if the defendant perpetrated the crime.

Jared Lee Loughner’s shooting spree occurred in a social environment with federally caused social stresses brought about by federal failure to prevent millions of illegal aliens from invading Arizona during Loeffner’s youth. Year after year raving radio, malicious music, myriad clumps of illegal aliens seeking work in every nook and cranny of Phoenix reduced the prospects for non-Hispanic employment.

Maybe Loughner is not a sort of Serbian shooter of an Austrian heir, yet a U.S. Congresswoman and a federal judge might have seemed blunt opponents to the unclever mind of Loughner. The real political economy of the American S.W. and of New Jersey where so many 9-11 terrorists lived when not in motels near Ft. Meade is changing. Those that are positioned to be more easily stressed by displacing economic forces may generate a percent of individuals resisting with violence the existential invasions of their mind and sometimes nation. Social classes empathic to the invading new social forces may feel especial antipathy toward the symbols of the ebbing social class such as G.E. Loughner might represent.

With the post-9-11 National Security Agency electronic surveillance upgrades and the potential for ubiquitous government eavesdropping it is more important than ever to keep psychiatric voodoo from taking legal power unto itself. Between the external linguistic and logic parameters of psychologists and the inexact target brain and associated behavior of state subjects the cause-effect relationships tend to be less credible than those of voodoo sometimes.

If Loughner’s brain was scanned with Magnetic resonance and the images made available to public scrutiny before he was given psychiatric drugs, we might at least see the prisoner’s present brain condition, blood flow and so forth. It is not possible to see how it was on the day of the shootings obviously. The condition of Loeffner’s brain at the day of trial if viewed with MR might appear different from his ‘normal’ condition. Should the state be free to modify the brain state of a defendant for trial when it differs from who he or she usually is (if a brain state may be regarded as who one is)?

What if Loughner’s brain state changes periodically from violent to non-violent modes-what if he has mood swings equivalent to p.m.s.-male urgings to detonate the opposition in which fantasies might surge into actuality-which state should he be made to conform to for trial-the meek and remorseful mode?

Legal findings of fact and conclusions of law might be held independently of the psychological condition of a defendant with less harm to public interests than a period of incarceration and chemical reconditioning of a yet non-convicted (though obviously guilty) prisoner. In at least some cases it might be better to first try the defendant and then sentence him or her to particular treatment or correction.

The danger of making political incorrectness and thought crimes psychological labels supported by law is a perennial danger to a free society. If psychiatric neurology ever became as exact an accurate as diagnosing a broken leg, and if fixing imbalance minds were as simple (it isn’t likely to be for a number of reasons) regarding psychiatry as more than a skilled voodoo sophism for generating proplits for practitioner might be reasonable. Laws need to be about real material transgressions though-not on what one thinks. Trials need to be about material facts and not about psychology or worse-psychiatric opinions that have less credibility than hear say evidence.

A time for psychiatry for convicts can arise after conviction and before sentencing where it is more appropriate. It is important to keep an effective barrier between free thought and thinking, behavior and legal boundaries. Society can ill afford to develop more legal leverage on individuals on the basis of what government shrinks think the citizens might be thinking.