no, i've pointed this out before - one of the most important things i learned from my brief stint studying law was just how daunting the deficit of scientific literacy in the law actually is, and how often judges are asked to rule on issues that they haven't the slightest training to rule on.

it's a huge problem.

we should be focusing less on eliminating mens rea, like a bunch of backwards dark age zealots, and more on increasing scientific literacy on the prosecutors' bench.

people often act against their will, and there's massive amounts of science backing it up. we often react on reflex, before we even think, and there's often little that could have been done to reverse it. the drugs are an extreme case, but they fit the definition - these people need treatment, not punishment.

an enlightened state would understand that, not resort to base consequentialism and the evocation of biblical literalism and fire and brimstone, as it seeks to punish the evildoers.

i'm not a fatalist. i generally refer to the primacy of free will, as best we understand it. but, it seems to be a common scenario that the judiciary is forced to rule on how somebody behaves in a split-second where they essentially have no meaningful control over what they actually do - because their endocrine systems take over, or it's just an autonomous reaction.

there needs to be an increased understanding of this as we seek more enlightened solutions, not a reversion to judaic retribution or an embrace of barbarism or backwardsness.