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.


  1. 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.
  2. "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)
  3. Psychologists view mental patients as victims, deny personal responsibility and look for an outside perpetrator.
  4. "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)
  5. 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)
  6. "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)
  7. 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)
  8. 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)
  9. 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".
  10. 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.
  11. Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, PMS, Reptilian Complex, Postpartum Depression, Bad DNA, Chemical imbalance, Alcoholism.
  12. 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.
  13. Every crime is viewed by some chemical/biological psychiatrists as excusable for a wide range of reasons.
  14. Evolutionists and humanists argue that we are mere chemicals, without spirit or free will. Therefore we are not responsible for anything we do.
  15. "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)
  16. "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:

  1. "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).
  2. 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)
  3. 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)
  4. 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)
  5. "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

  1. 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.
  2. 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?")
  3. "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)
  4. "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)
  5. "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)
  6. "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)
  7. 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)
  8. "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)
  9. 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).
  10. 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".
  11. 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)
  12. 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)
  13. 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)
  14. "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)
  15. 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)
  16. "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)
  17. 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)
  18. 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)
  19. "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)
  20. 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)
  21. "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:

  1. 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".
  2. "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)
  3. 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)
  4. "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)
  5. 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)
  6. "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)
  7. Both Rush and Heinroth were wrong. A person will always be held responsible for his actions.


  1. "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)
  2. 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.
  3. Psychologists view mental patients as victims, deny personal responsibility and look for an outside perpetrator.
  4. 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!
  5. 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.
  6. The Bible says:
    1. ""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
    2. "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
  7. "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)
  8. 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