The criminal justice system will need to continue to fail in the face of cognitive neuroscience, spurring the need for a re-examination of the logic of punishment. Punishment DOES make sense, I sincerely believe, but not because they were motivated by some non-biological immaterial motivation or force. "My brain made me do it" is an irrelevant statement. There is nothing our brains DON'T make us do.

Mangar: A lack of "mens rea" or cognizance that comes as a result of their disorder???

No. But we've been laboring under the tacit assumption that mens rea can only be a basis for punishment if it is not otherwise explainable by physical causes. Think about that for a second: a person's mindset must (basically) be an uncaused causer, which puts it in a supernatural category. People don't usually think of it this way, but in a materialist philosophy where everything is the product of past physical events, an event that is unexplainable by material events is mystic. Defenses have begun to be based on the mental-state correlation: criminals have a higher baseline average level of testosterone, for example. So, if you get a high-testosterone person committing a crime, was it "them" or was it the testosterone (or, was it the Twinkies?) Thing is, there is no "them", or else they ARE the testosterone and every other neurological structure and transmitter in that head. So the question is not whether people deserve punishment based on our human intuitions (which are not designed to include cognitive neuroscience data), but whether the person or persons, as a physical system or systems, is (or are) likely to respond to the punishment in the desired fashion. That is, are they less likely to offend in the future if punished? If a mental illness keeps them from appreciating the punishment, then it's pointless. If a "compulsion" will cause continued behavior despite any punishment, it's also pointless. In those cases, it may be best to restrict freedom not out of a sense of "justice", "anger", or other punitive sentiment, but simply to keep the person from re-enacting the behavior, mens rea or no.

Mangar:

"mens rea" is the basis for conviction. If you can't prove intent or guilty mind, there can be no conviction.

I would ascert also there is no court, lawyer, prosecutor, judge, or jury which has the medical knowledge necessary to ascertain "mens rea" with regard to these disorders of the brain. No cognitive ability, no intent or guilty mind.

Have not seen you in a while, hope all is well.