|
2019-01-08 Science & Technology
|
|
US Supreme Court, Neurotoxic Causes of Violent Crime
|
 [Raymond Singer, Ph.D., Fellow, American Board of Professional Neuropsychology] My work in neurotoxicity and neuropsychology was cited by US Supreme Court Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 2016. They reviewed work that I had accomplished in a death penalty case, where I had presented evidence that the convicted murderer had actually been poisoned as a child and young adult ‐ and that the poisoning created neuropsychological conditions that made him susceptible to violent crime later in life. The Supreme Court justices based their opinion (in part) on the proof that I presented that the violent offender had indeed been poisoned; that his brain had been permanently damaged from the poisons; and that this damage reduced his ability to think, plan, manage, remember, and control. Without these human neuropsychological functions, humans are reduced to animals who are controlled by reflexes ‐ not by reason ‐ or they may respond as machine-like automatons under conditions of extreme stress. A person in that reduced state of human functioning, according to law, is less guilty for their actions, however deplorable, and may have the death penalty abated. The death penalty is reserved for those who knowingly and with full human faculties commit murder.
This case sets a precedent for evaluating the true costs and effects of neurotoxic poisoning in our society. At times, industry carelessly pollutes our environment ‐ as occurred in this case. The pollution can have devasting effects on the human nervous system and human behavior many years later. The horrible effects of neurotoxic pollution may manifest many years later in a tragic murder due to brain illness. Unfortunately, people suffering from neurotoxicity often cannot even get a proper diagnosis, let alone treatment and rehabilitation. This lack of proper diagnosis and treatment is often due to the lack of education among treating doctors regarding the possible effects neurotoxicity, resulting in misdiagnosis of patient’s illnesses.
Adding insult to injury, some lawyers assist in the injustice by denying neurotoxicity cases their just compensation for their illnesses when they appeal to courts for help with their illness, and sometimes persuading judges to prevent a jury from even learning about possible neurotoxic causes of a plaintiff’s illness. The result is obviously an unfair trial.
|
Posted by Besoeker 2019-01-08 08:18||
||
Front Page|| [8 views ]
Top
|
|
Posted by Dave D. 2019-01-08 09:13||
2019-01-08 09:13||
Front Page
Top
|
|
Posted by Frank G 2019-01-08 09:17||
2019-01-08 09:17||
Front Page
Top
|
|
Posted by Bright Pebbles 2019-01-08 09:18||
2019-01-08 09:18||
Front Page
Top
|
|
Posted by Silentbrick 2019-01-08 09:31||
2019-01-08 09:31||
Front Page
Top
|
|
Posted by trailing wife 2019-01-08 09:45||
2019-01-08 09:45||
Front Page
Top
|
|
Posted by Woodrow 2019-01-08 10:41||
2019-01-08 10:41||
Front Page
Top
|
|
Posted by trailing wife 2019-01-08 11:38||
2019-01-08 11:38||
Front Page
Top
|
|
Posted by 746 2019-01-08 12:21||
2019-01-08 12:21||
Front Page
Top
|
|
Posted by Bright Pebbles 2019-01-08 13:09||
2019-01-08 13:09||
Front Page
Top
|
|
01:45 NN2N1
01:44 NN2N1
01:40 NN2N1
01:36 NN2N1
01:34 Grom the Reflective
01:32 crazyhorse
01:07 Grom the Reflective
00:28 Angealing+B.+Hayes4677
|
