The law as it has stood for centuries has imposed different degrees of liability based on one's mental state and this is often tied to moral standards. Just a

The law as it has stood for centuries has imposed different degrees of liability based on one's mental state and this is often tied to moral standards. Just a sampling: (a) it takes "malice aforethought" or premeditation to support higher degrees of a murder conviction; (b) one must act with "scienter" (intent or knowledge of wrongdoing) to be held liable for various intentional torts such as fraud; (c) punitive damages may be awarded to punish a wrongdoer for conduct that is outrageous or wanton or done in reckless disregard of the rights of others. When I read reports such as this piece, I always wonder how the science can be real and yet have such a disconnect with real-world application, i.e., if it is true that we fundamentally don't control our actions, why should we be held responsible for them depending on varying states of mind? Why should we incur larger penalties if we "intended" to take a wrong action if our intention is ultimately based on unconscious stimuli over which we have no control? Why should it be wrong to steal something if an uncontrollable impulse made us do it? Given these sorts of disconnects, I wonder if society doesn't treat science of this type effectively as if it were really more like philosophy - interesting to contemplate but often having no real-world application. Certainly, if it is true science (verifiable, repeatable, etc.), the law should change to follow suit. Yet how would that happen without chaos ensuing in the areas of crimes, torts, etc. where people are supposed to be held responsible for their wrongs and particularly if they intended to commit them?