Dylann Roof: Morally Evil or Mentally Ill?
In 2016, a young man named Dylann Roof walked into a church in Charleston, South Carolina and senselessly murdered 9 strangers who had lovingly welcomed him. Over the last several months, the world watched as Dylann Roof began his trial and confessed to both his culpability and motivation for committing such a senseless crime. But when it is said that Roof’s crime was senseless, does it indicate that that there was simply no justifiable cause for his hateful actions; that he must be held responsible? Or does it mean that Dylann Roof’s actions were done apart from his senses; that his mental state was beyond his control and caused him to murder; that he was insane/mentally ill? The debate over whether some people are mentally ill or morally evil continues to escalate in today’s society. With mental health advocates/theorists proposing new ways to judicially approach some people outside of the current court systems, the need for thoughtful discussion has become more urgent.
In some ways, Roof’s trial was unique, and in other ways, His trial sheds much light on what is occurring more regularly within the American judicial system. From the outset of his trial, Roof verbally provided both his intent and confession of guilt for the prosecutors to work with. He not only pronounced his hatred for African Americans and claimed that it led him to plan and carry out this horrific crime, but he also opened his self-represented defense stating, “There’s nothing wrong with me psychologically.” He later testified, “I will not be calling mental health experts or presenting mental health evidence” and “I didn’t have to do anything and no one made me do it.” In spite of these confessions, Roof underwent hours of psychiatric evaluation and was claimed by psychiatrists to be mentally ill. One local newspaper reported:
“Federal court records unsealed this week from the trial of Dylann Roof reveal that the convicted mass murderer was diagnosed with Schizoid Personality Disorder, possible autism and other mental disorders that his lawyers believed were ‘sufficiently severe’ to prevent him from being able to represent himself.”
But U.S. District judge, the honorable Richard Gergel, concluded otherwise: “The court has found defendant mentally competent to stand trial, and, indeed, defendant was extremely engaged during his two-day competency hearing.” Was Roof mentally ill when he committed these acts, and are his confessions actually delusions brought about by his “Schizoid Personality Disorder”? Or is Roof just simply an evil criminal driven by hatred? How can we—and especially those within the judicial system—objectively know which is true?
The Dylann Roof case, among other things, exposes that psychiatry as a whole, many in the judicial system, and society in general all struggle to accept just how evil and morally depraved humanity is. Even when individuals clearly state their intentions and take responsibility for their actions, we have come to prefer the psychiatric moral lens to interpret many confusing or unwanted human mindsets and behaviors over the Scriptural and even American judicial perspectives. How have we arrived at this place?
The psychiatric theory of bio-determinism along with the genetic theory of the mind was first introduced by Francis Galton in the early 1800s. It was popularized by the father of psychiatric eugenics and the father of the current American construct of mental illness and psychopharmacology, Emil Kraepelin. This bio-determinism or genetic-determinism has become a prominent foundation to modern American anthropology. It was also foundational to the Nazi Eugenics movement carried out by Emil Kraepelin’s premier student, Ernst Rudin, and first known as the eugenics movement. Today, America has come to accept humanistic/deterministic thinking because we have accepted (to some degree) Darwin’s theory of evolution, Galton’s theory of genetic determinism, and Kraepelin’s theory of abnormal minds or “madness.”
The construct of mental illness is not just a newly repackaged eugenics (now called genetics) movement, it is an important tenet to the evolutionary moral system that opposes the anthropology and authority of the current judicial system and Scripture. In fact, the construct of mental illness is a moral system that judges people according to psychiatric theory—mostly found in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual-5th edition (DSM). This moral system perceives someone’s innocence or guilt not on scientific fact, but based entirely upon four subjective qualifiers: (1) the person’s (or someone close to them) own testimony about their condition (2) the person’s behavior (3) the opinion of one or more professionals trained to evaluate and interpret behavior in accordance with Kraepelinian thinking (4) and on immeasurable and theorized biological causes of those impairing mindsets and behavior. All of these evaluative tools are subjective and problematic and many are conjecture. The DSM-5 itself states,
“It is important to note that the definition of mental disorder included in DSM-5 was developed to meet the needs of clinicians, public health professionals, and research investigators rather than all of the technical needs of the courts and legal professionals . . . . Even when diminished control over one’s behavior is a feature of the disorder, having the diagnosis in itself does not demonstrate that a particular individual is (or was) unable to control his or her behavior at a particular time.” 
One does not need to live long in order to realize that human nature is deceived above all other things (Jeremiah 17:9), and therefore, a person’s testimony does not mean that he/she is telling the truth or is not deceived. Delusions—one of the foundational ideas of madness/insanity, by definition, are false fixed beliefs, and false fixed believes explain normalcy. Even believing someone who is considered delusional in itself seems mad.
Traditionally, psychiatrists and psychologists were specialized fields to study human nature, to protect those perceived as abnormal from those believed to be normal, and more recently to attempt treating the soul with psychoactive substances. But today’s psychiatry has gained unprecedented authority over almost every aspect of personal and social life. Dr. Tana Dineen remarks,
“In the first decade of the 21st century, psychologizing has taken over virtually every aspect of human existence. There are psychological experts in death and dying, obesity and eating disorders, being married and being single, sexual pleasure and dysfunction, being fired and being successful, midlife crisis and growing old, child care and elder care, and so on.”
Dr. Dineen later explains how psychiatrists’ growing power over the judicial system is troubling:
“Nowhere, however, is the entrepreneurial psychologist more evident than in the courtroom. As early as the 1970s, the APA expressed the “expectation that in the future forensic psychologists will roam confidently and competently far beyond the traditional roles of psychologists.” This prediction is being realized . . . . Health care used to be the lucrative arena of choice for psychologists; now it has clearly been replaced by the legal system. This was made explicit at a 1995 “psychology and the law” conference at Villanova Law School where participants agreed that psychology “is poised to grab a more prominent role in law after years on the sidelines.”
Already, psychologists and psychiatrists are determining trial outcomes and being allowed to author major laws.
If a person—especially someone with power in the judicial system—has bought into the current ideology of the American Psychiatric Association’s DSM, then it only makes sense that he/she will interpret mindsets and behavior in accordance with this belief system. Former chair of the DSM-IV, psychiatrist Allen Frances, explains:
“The labeling of mental disorder has evolved over time because the lens of cultural attention extracts figure from ground in many different ways. We see elephants in clouds if we look for them. But could equally well find whales or rabbits if these better fit our preconceptions—the cloud doesn’t have to change for people to see different shapes in it. Psychiatric diagnosis is seeing something that exists, but with a pattern shaped by what we expect to see.”
Psychiatrists expect mindsets and behavior to fit their belief/moral system, but it is also understandable that the same behavior can be evaluated, judged, and labeled differently than how the Kraepelinian system of mental illness frames it in the DSM. Are delusions (“false fixed beliefs”), for example, signs of psychosis or simply revealing our normal deceptive nature? No matter how mindsets and behaviors are judged, though, someone or something must still take the blame for causing undesirable and impairing behavior. This explains why psychiatrists must continue to speculate about biological causes for bad/impairing behavior and why the judicial system is so important to a free society. In other words, these opposing moral systems explain the same behavior according to their ideologies. Neuropsychiatrist Richard Restak explains,
"In reducing deviant behavior to brain dysfunction and the genetic, dietary, social and environmental factors that lead to it, neurologists threaten to eliminate the humanistic concept of the person as a rational being endowed with rights and responsibilities. The shift from the insanity defense to the neurological one would resolve the traditional tension between the mad and the bad by defining away the bad."
In their current paradigm—in accordance with materialistic and deterministic philosophies, biology or environments are responsible for bad behavior while a person’s character is responsible for their good behavior. Yet, no biological markers exists for any “mental illnesses,” (e.g., autism, dementia, and Alzheimer’s are not mental illnesses; they are neurological disorders) and no biological etiologies have ever been found.
While objective evidence is required in the criminal court system, no biological evidence exists to prove that a person could or could not resist committing their bad behavior. Barbara Wootton explains, “Neither medical nor any other science can ever hope to prove whether a man who does not resist his impulses does not do so because he cannot or because he will not.” Even if it were hypothetically possible that such impairment could exist, proving one way or the other is scientifically impossible. Attorney David Bazelon also comments, “The factors that determine whether someone who has demonstrated problematic behavior enters the criminal justice system or the mental health system are often capricious rather than objective.” If no objective way exists to differentiate criminal behavior from "ill" behavior, and the behavior committed fits into both moral systems, how is the judicial system to judge people like Dylann Roof who admit to being culpable for bizarre/evil behavior or others who claim that they “could not help themselves?” In large part, that verdict will depend entirely on the worldview of the judge/jury and those creating laws and overseeing the judicial process.
If materialism and determinism on which the mental health construct exists are true, then no one should be held accountable for any of their behavior—not just those whose behavior is unacceptable. What then would be the purpose of a judicial system at all? Why would we have an academic system based entirely on personal performance? We have accepted psychiatric conjecture without careful thought; a suggestion that bad behavior is genetically determined and not a person's choice, and that good behavior is the fruit of one's character. Mental health theorists and advocates are not concerned about fitting good behavior into their theory just yet. Once Kraepelin’s theory of abnormal thoughts and behavior is accepted—it is well on its way, the door opens for Galton’s deterministic theory of intellect and “normal minds” to be received as well. This shift in moral thinking is the inevitable result of accepting evolutionary theory, humanism, and materialism.
Neuroscientists and neurologists are now important figures in propagating neuro-determinism and establishing a new judicial/moral system. Instead of strictly writing on objective science, they are leading the way in promoting subjective social theory and speculation. Along with atheistic neuroscientist Sam Harris who himself wants to end religious faith and the current moral system, philosopher and neuroscientist Joshua Greene is aggressively promoting a new bio-deterministic moral system. He boldly states, as quoted in Wired,
"New neuroscience will affect the way we view the law, not by furnishing us with new ideas or arguments about the nature of human action, but by breathing new life into old ones. [Neuroscience] can help us see that all behavior is mechanical, that all behavior is produced by chains of physical events that ultimately reach back to forces beyond the agent’s control [emphasis added]."
Similarly, neuroscientist David Eagleman comments,
"Our current style of punishment rests on a bedrock of personal volition and blame. . . . Although societies possess deeply ingrained impulses for punishment, a different kind of criminal system—one with a close relationship to neuroscience of decisions—can be imagined."
So how do we judge Dylann Roof and others whose behavior is disturbing or confusing? There exists no objective way to measure or know whether Roof (or anyone else for that matter) could or could not help committing his crimes. In other words, we must choose which moral system Dylann Roof’s character should be perceived from without any scientific or objective tools. We can only observe his behavior without truly understanding his motives—only God can search the heart and righteously judge human motives. We are left to use God’s truth to decide what is acceptable and what is unacceptable behavior. Likewise, we must accept that moral behavior—by nature—is never caused by biology and is fully the responsibility of each person.
Since we are on the topic of murder, it helps to take a closer look from Scripture. God reveals in His Word that murder is caused by the naturally depraved/selfish desires of a person’s spiritual heart and not from alleged biological malfunctions. James 4:1-2 states, “What causes quarrels and what causes fights among you? Is it not this, that your passions are at war within you? You desire and do not have, so you murder. You covet and cannot obtain, so you fight and quarrel.” EGGs and FMRIs can evaluate a murder’s brain, but they will never provide pictures or insights into the spiritual mind that is known to alter the physical characteristics of the brain and genes. Attorneys can ask questions and psychiatrists can interpret behavior and words, but only God can precisely explain why people commit immoral and destructive behavior. The “brain-dysfunction theory,” proposed by Emil Kraepelin, sounds like a good argument, but there is absolutely no empirical evidence to validate it; it is simply an evolutionary theory of the mind. Likewise, there exists no empirical evidence to prove or disprove whether or not someone can or cannot help killing another human being. But God says that murder is wrong and that it is born out of a moral/spiritual heart—not a malfunctioning brain. It must be made clear, however, that we are not talking about amoral behavior, such as motor skills, speech impairment, and paralysis, to name a few. True brain malfunction or injury never causes people to murder or act out in other immoral ways.
Many of the crimes being committed by those in question are misdemeanors for things like stealing food from a store in order to eat. But stealing in order to eat, no matter what is claimed, proves sanity. One who is brain-dead or inflicted with Alzheimer’s disease, as examples, regularly do not fulfill basic human needs like eating. None-the-less, when we seemingly do not have answers to human impairment or distress, we have become content to label it as mental illness and excuse away an aspect of humanity that is difficult and uncomfortable.
One of the problems with having two opposing systems is choosing when one system or the other will be granted authority to interpret behavior. But let me be clear, one system or the other will always prevail at a given time. According to biblical morals, character is judged by behavior. For example, Proverbs 20:11 states that “Even a child is known by his doings [behaviors], whether his work be pure, and whether it be right.” The later portion of the verse also emphasizes that moral discretion—some form of morality—is always necessary to interpret human behavior. In similar fashion, psychiatrist Lawrie Reznek remarks from a secular vantage point:
“A person’s character consists of character traits, and a character trait is an enduring disposition to behave (in particular situations) in a certain way. For example, cowardice is one of Dennis’ character traits because when faced with any dangerous situation, he (usually) runs away. A trait is part of a person’s moral character if the disposition is one that inclines him to act in moral or immoral ways. For example, altruism is one of Theresa’s moral character traits because when she is faced with situations where she can help others, even at the expense of her own needs, she (usually) does so. I will argue that the best way to make sense of excuses is that these are features which show that even though the person did a harmful thing, he is nonetheless a good character. While the notion of intentionality is central to the criminal law, the notion of character is especially important to the understanding of who deserves punishment.”
Psychiatric thinking (and sometimes the current judicial system) excuses moral behavior on the sole basis of whether or not one claims that he or she is capable to resist certain moral actions. Someone labeled as a criminal and someone labeled as mentally ill can both behave in the exact same way—such as multiple homicides, yet they are judged differently based not on their character or on objective and measurable evidence, but on a presuppositional belief/moral system of the judge, the jury, “professional witnesses”, and/or the subjective testimony of the one in question. Scripture, however, sees all people’s character as depraved from birth; there is no need to speculate about what went wrong; it has been wrong from the beginning. Matthew 7:16-18 states,
“You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorn bushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit.”
We are reminded in this passage, that the natural man—those who have not placed their faith in Jesus Christ—cannot behave in such a way that pleases God. Those who cannot please God will behave in all sorts of depraved ways—even horrific and evil ways which are hard to believe. This, however, does not mean that people are not responsible for their behavior or that they are biologically abnormal. It simply means that their natural way of thinking is to “bear bad fruit”/behave in an immoral/impairing/destructive way. When a person murders another, there is no need to look for biological causes and speculate about “what went wrong?”
The psychiatric ideology interprets horrific or confusing behavior through a moral system that views humanity as strong, good, and altruistic. When someone is “impaired,” “distressed,” or causing impairment or distress to someone else, then that individual is not viewed as normal within the construct of biological psychiatrists. In the case of murder or criminal activity against another, psychiatry does not view those who naturally struggle with wrong desires (James 4) to be morally evil. Instead, they are viewed within Kraepelin’s moral system as “mad,” “crazy,” or “insane.”
When Kraepelin introduced his new moral system, he began creating individual categories and labels for which to judge and perceive people’s impairing and troubling behavior—typically behaviors that did not fit into the evolutionary theory; it is a system that claims people are strong and evolving. This published moral system would eventually become the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual owned by the American Psychiatric Association. In many ways, this book—widely known as the “psychiatric bible”—has replaced God’s Word in many court cases as the interpreter of human behavior and motives. The DSM-5 is a materialistic/deterministic moral lens through which to judge behavior.
But what if the DSM-5 is not a book of actual diseases and is rather a book of constructs (social theories) that merely explain behavior and mindsets from a theoretical/philosophical vantage point. Then, judicial cases being determined by the DSM-5’s idea of insanity/mental illness are not scientific endeavors; they are simply moral beliefs being applied. Many prominent psychiatrists are now coming forward to question the legitimacy of psychiatric ideas such as psychosis, schizophrenia, bipolar, and schizotypal, which are most widely claimed to be insanity. At the end of 2016, for example, Sir Robin Murray—one of the most highly regarded psychiatrists and researchers (both in the US and abroad) on the construct of schizophrenia—published a shocking article in the Schizophrenia Bulletin in which he admitted to wasting a good portion of his life attempting to validate the psychiatric claim of schizophrenia as a biological disease. He concludes by stating,
“I expect to see the end of the concept of schizophrenia soon. Already the evidence that it is a discrete entity rather than just the severe end of psychosis has been fatally undermined. Furthermore, the syndrome is already beginning to breakdown, for example, into those cases caused by copy number variations, drug abuse, social adversity, etc. Presumably this process will accelerate, and the term schizophrenia will be confined to history, like ‘dropsy.’” 
Others, such as the prominent psychiatrist Dr. Allen Frances—who many state was the most powerful psychiatrist at the turn of the century, say about the DSMs that, “We saw DSM-IV as a guidebook, not a bible—a collection of temporarily useful diagnostic constructs, not a catalog of ‘real’ diseases [emphasis added].” The DSM-5 is the authoritative basis on which every verdict of insanity is supposedly made. Yet, as the former head over psychiatry at Duke University and the leading researcher on schizophrenia attest, insanity is a construct and not a real disease. Furthermore, Frances also exposes that the DSM is not objective; it is simply a book of suggestions from the psychiatric perspective.
Despite these facts, this powerful book of suggestions is slowly taking ownership of the judicial system. Every claim of insanity and the assertion that a person has a real disease and cannot help their behavior is based on the alleged validity and reliability of the DSM-5. It also may be shocking for many to learn that the DSM-I recognized psychosis and schizophrenia as “Schizophrenia Reaction.” Are reactions illnesses or are they the result of character and circumstances? The behaviors have not changed, it is merely how they are interpreted that have changed the labels and altered the judicial system.
Though the DSM-5 has gained wide acceptance in American culture, its proposed psychiatric moral system opposes both God’s moral law and the established American judiciary system. In fact, psychiatrist and co-founder of the World Federation of Mental Health, Brock Chisholm, revealed in 1945 the underlying reason why mental illness constructs were created by humanists/materialists:
"The re-interpretation and eventually eradication of the concept of right and wrong which has been the basis of child training, the substitution of intelligent and rational thinking for faith . . . are the belated objectives of practically all effective psychotherapy."
He later states,
"The pretense is made, as it has been made in relation to the finding of any extension of truth, that to do away with right and wrong would produce uncivilized people, immorality, lawlessness and social chaos. The fact is that most psychiatrists and psychologists and other respected people have escaped from moral chains and are able to think freely."
Chisholm also insisted that psychiatry was the main organization which could eradicate such traditional morals: “If the race is to be freed from the crippling burden of good and evil, it must be psychiatrists who take the original responsibility.”
Today in America, the insanity and temporary insanity pleas are used regularly in the court systems. Yet, there exists no objective test to know whether someone could or could not help themselves or whether insanity is just another way to describe evil done through deceptive thinking. In fact, what are often the determining factors in the court system are the degree to which behavior is judged to be evil or confusing to the observer and the subjective opinion of two psychiatrists who have fully bought into the psychiatric moral system. But psychiatrist Lawrie Reznek remarks on this fallacy:
"If all our behavior is caused, we need to know why some causes excuse and some do not. We are led straight into Wootton’s Paradox: If abnormal conditions are classified as disorders, and this implies a lack of responsibility, then those with the most bizarre desires will be the most innocent. Wootton (1978: 231) writes: “If a man’s crimes are by ordinary standards only moderately objectionable, we are prepared to regard him as wicked, and therefore a suitable subject for punishment; but if his wickedness goes beyond a certain point, it ceases to be wickedness at all and becomes mental disorder.” The more extreme the behavior, the more inclined we are to consider that the behavior is the product of a deranged mind. If being mentally disordered undermines responsibility, it is impossible for extreme evil to exist, which seems absurd."
Besides exposing the logical fallacy of embracing two opposing moral systems, Reznek’s statement also notes that if one or the other moral system is fully applied the judicial system and the mental health system cannot truly function together and be consistent. With every claim of insanity (or temporary insanity) in the court systems, a battle for preeminence between the judicial system and the Kraepelinian mental health system ensues. Distinguished British lawyer, judge, and jurist Lord Devlin explains, “The concept of [mental] illness expands continually at the expense of the concept of moral responsibility.” The historian Roy Porter also remarks,
"Psychiatrists inevitably played a growing role in the public domain, notably in the courtroom. Lunatics and ‘idiots’ had long been, under certain circumstances, made wards of the state, and it was accepted that the insane, not being responsible for their acts, should be exempt from punishment for criminal deeds . . . . Disputes over the insanity defense (who was bad? And who was mad?) highlighted conflicts between legal and psychiatric models of the person, and left the public standing of psychiatry dubious."
Progressively, laws are changing in the United States and reshaping the American moral system. Psychiatrists and mental health advocates today are aggressively passing laws that will enable the creation of entirely new “mental health courts,” new police regulations and training, and insisting that both moral systems can continue together:
“Mental health courts straddle the two worlds of criminal law and mental health, requiring collaboration and consideration from practitioners in both fields. They typically involve judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys and other court personnel who have expressed an interest in or possess particular mental health expertise. Today there are 25 to 30 of these courts, depending on the definition used, and more are being planned. Congress addressed the issue in 2000, passing America’s Law Enforcement and Mental Health Project Act, which makes federal funds available to local jurisdictions seeking to establish or expand mental health specialty courts and diversion programs.” 
Currently, most mental health courts are handling non-violent crimes, but there is a significant increase in violent and serious crimes now being assigned to this new system:
“mental health courts appear to be gradually expanding their jurisdiction to accept people charged with more serious offenses. This is a positive trend, reflecting the most appropriate use of mental health courts.”
A growing number of people are accepting the idea that some invisible and immeasurable force is causing people to commit serious crimes, and that these people should not be held responsible for their criminal behavior.
While the new court system and newly suggested police training may now seem non-threatening to the current judicial courts, the underlying moral system opposes the morals represented in the American criminal justice system. What may actually be taking place, however, is the next step in Chisholm’s decree to psychiatrists to replace traditional morals with new humanistic/ deterministic morals; morals which hold no one culpable for their actions. If presented with a choice to be judged in two different moral systems, why would a criminal subject him/herself to a system that holds him/her accountable? Insisting that you could not help yourself—that you were mentally ill—may just be the ticket to freedom.
It is also worth noting that
“not all courts require proof that the person has been diagnosed with a mental illness. See, e.g., King County District Court, Washington. For some people, the first time a mental illness is recognized by the family or the individual is when the person is arrested for bizarre or unusual behavior [emphasis added].”
Already, many people—even violent criminals—have realized that the idea of mental health or the plea of insanity offers them a new moral system in which to have their behaviors judged.
Shortly after the insanity verdict was handed down to John Hinckley for attempting to shoot then President Ronald Reagan, political speech writer and author, Peggy Noonan, wrote:
"If you commit a big crime then you are crazy, and the more heinous the crime the crazier you must be. Therefore you are not responsible, and nothing is your fault. . . . And what they [the calculating criminal] learn from this verdict is that you can do anything: you can wait like a jackal and shoot a man in the head and leave him for dead and buy your way out with clever lawyers and expensive physiatrists."
Many mental health professionals and acclaimed scientists argue that the current judicial and moral system in place today must be eliminated and replaced fully with materialistic/deterministic thinking. Richard Dawkins explains this common thinking,
"Retribution as a moral principle is incompatible with a scientific view of human behavior [emphasis added]. 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."
Dawkins goes on to say,
"But doesn't a truly scientific, mechanistic view of the nervous system make nonsense of the very idea of responsibility, whether diminished or not? Any crime, however heinous, is in principle to be blamed on antecedent conditions acting through the accused's physiology, heredity and environment. Don't judicial hearings to decide questions of blame or diminished responsibility make as little sense for a faulty man as for a faulty car?"
The end result of establishing this new moral/judicial system of mental health in America will be to eliminate the current moral system as Chisholm proposed to psychiatrists. This has been, and will continue to be, a gradual change in American thinking until it is too late. The current system looks to objective evidence and empirical science to make discerning judgments. The Mental health system determines one’s guilt/innocence on beliefs, scientism, and interpretations of behavior within their subjective paradigm. Dr. Dineen remarks,
“Thus began the long and well-established tradition of psychologists consorting with lawyers to the point where ‘the pursuit of truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth has given way to reams of meaningless data, fearful speculation, and fantastic conjecture. Courts resound with elaborate, systematized, jargon-filled, serious-sounding deceptions that fully deserve the contemptuous label used by trial lawyers themselves: junk science.’”
The junk science and junk verdicts are entirely subjective, to the point that many psychiatrists judge Jesus Christ to have been suffering from psychosis, paranoia, and other alleged mental disorders. Take for example, psychiatrist Charles Binet-Sangle’s comments: “In short, the nature of the hallucinations of Jesus, as they are described in the orthodox Gospels, permits us to conclude that the founder of the Christian religion was afflicted with religious paranoia.” Or the statements made by the renowned psychiatrist William Sargant: “Jesus Christ might simply have returned to his carpentry following the use of modern psychiatric treatments.” Or consider the opinions of several psychiatrists published in the Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience:
"Jesus’ experiences can be potentially conceptualized within the framework of Paranoid Schizophrenia or Psychosis NOS. Other reasonable possibilities might include bipolar and schizoaffective disorders. … hyperreligiosity” They also point out that Christ most likely had “Suicide-by-proxy,” described as: “any incident in which a suicidal individual causes his or her death to be carried out by another person.”
Was Jesus insane, or does His life—the faith He established—simply not fit into the belief system of these psychiatrists?
It is not just attorneys and judges whose authority is being slowly and systematically removed; already our police are being put in greater danger and forced to now consider two judicial systems that oppose one another. In South Carolina where Roof committed his murders, for example, laws are being introduced, which if passed, would force officers to be retrained to think differently about the danger of being shot at based on an immeasurable and unproven theory of someone’s mental state. As if being a police officer was not dangerous enough today, laws—such as that being proposed in S.C.—would surely bring even more stress and causalities to our men and women in service:
"Laura Lemieux, deep in the throes of mental illness and substance abuse, fired bullets into the sky and yelled that she wanted to die. A deputy shot her with a rifle, and she died. Prosecutors in those Berkeley County shootings deemed the deputies' actions justified. But the cases [sic] posed many of the issues that make up a recent push by prosecutors, police agencies and lawmakers to redefine officers' training on the use of force and change how the shootings are investigated."
The entire judicial/moral system and those who enforce it are now threatened by the new moral system of mental illness.
Dylann Roof’s case exposes the conflicting worldviews and moral systems present in our culture. The changes to our judicial system and the new control over our police—which will occur over the next several years—will not only further reveal the growing moral conflict in our country, it will most likely lead to the replacement of biblical morals in our judicial system. If this occurs, anyone who opposes the new humanistic/deterministic moral system can be diagnosed as delusional—“having false fixed beliefs”— and sentenced accordingly. This punishment may look like forced psychiatric medicine or confinement to a mental health ward. In most states, laws already permit physicians both to drug and hold those diagnosed as being mentally ill against their will. If it sounds like the moral system under Nazi rule in Germany, it is because our current construct of mental illness is directly from the German nationalist Emil Kraepelin who diagnosed the Jews as schizophrenic and began the psychiatric eugenics movement that led to the Holocaust.
Unless Biblical morals are upheld and the judicial system protected, the Evolutionary/mental illnesses theory will destroy American society. Since the introduction of Kraepelinian (biological) psychiatry and psychopharmacology, mental struggles have not subsided; they have grown out of control. What has become clear in recent years is that no aspect of society is safe from secularism. If we are to keep America just and free, we must continue to hold all people accountable for their moral transgressions and stop pretending that two moral systems can coexist. One or the other will eventually win out entirely. Either all people are responsible and capable of controlling their moral behavior, or no one is.
Dylann Roof is not ill; he is just naturally depraved as we all are. In fact, we are all by nature evil and capable of the most bizarre and hideous mindsets and behavior unless we submit our minds to pursue God and accept His moral righteousness. Even if our judicial system were to change for the worst, God’s moral integrity will remain the same, and we will each one day answer to Him.
To learn more about the moral system known as mental illness, please see Daniel R. Berger II, Mental Illness: The Reality of the Spiritual Nature (Taylors, SC: Alethia International Publications, 2016), and Mental Illness: The Necessity for Faith and Authority (Taylors, SC: Alethia International Publications, 2016).
Citations and Remarks:
 Emily Shapiro, Anne Emerson, and Kristen McFann, “There is nothing wrong psychologically with me,” ABC News (January 4, 2017): http://abcnews.go.com/US/sentencing-phase-begins-Dylannn-roof-federal-death-penalty/story?id=44544348.
 Tim Smith, “Unsealed Records Mentions Roof’s ‘Sufficiently Severe’ Mental Illness,” Greenville News Online (February 2, 2017): http://www.greenvilleonline.com/story/news/2017/02/02/unsealed-record-mentions-roofs-sufficiently-severe-mental-illness/97396082/
 American Psychiatric Association, The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th ed. (Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing, 2013), 25.
 Tana Dineen, Manufacturing Victims: What The Psychology Industry is Doing to People, 3rd edition (New York: Robert Davies Publishing, 2000), 154.
 Ibid., 155.
 Allen Frances, Saving Normal: An Insider’s Revolt against Diagnosis, DSM-5, Big Pharma, and the Medicalization of Ordinary Life (New York: HarperCollins, 2013), 36.
 Richard Restak, The Brain has a Mind of Its Own: Insights from a Practicing Neurologist (New York: Crown Publishers, 1991), 20.
 Daniel R. Berger II, Mental Illness, The Reality of the Physical Nature (Taylors, SC: Alethia International Publications, 2016).
 Barbara Wootton, Crime and the Criminal Law: Reflections of a Magistrate and Social Scientist, vol. 15 (London: Stevens and Sons, 1981), 78.
 David L. Bazelon “The Role of Mental Health Courts in System Reform,” Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law: http://www.bazelon.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=xQf5_1grKcI%3D&tabid=104, 15.
 See Sam Harris, The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values (New York: Free Press, 2010).
 Greene quoted by Rowen Hooper, “Are We Puppets or Free Agents?” Wired, Dec. 13, 2004.
 David Eagleman, The Brain: The Story of You (New York: Pantheon Books, 2015), , 129.
 The stuies of psychoneuroimmunology, epigenetics, and the placebo have clearly shown that every thought a person thinks alters their physical nature—for better or for worse—down to the very chemicals and molecules. See Daniel R. Berger II, Mental Illness: The Reality of the Physical Nature (Taylors, SC: Alethia International Publications, 2016).
 Lawrie Reznek, Evil or Ill?: Justifying the Insanity Defense (New York: Routledge, 1997), 12.
 Daniel R. Berger II, Mental Illness: The Necessity For Faith and Authority (Taylors, SC: Alethia International Publications, 2016), 73-82.
 Allen Frances, Saving Normal: An Insider’s Revolt against Diagnosis, DSM-5, Big Pharma, and the Medicalization of Ordinary Life (New York: HarperCollins, 2013), 73.
 Richard Bentall, Madness Explained: Psychosis and Human Nature (New York: Penguin, 2003), 58.
 G. Brock Chisholm, stated at the UN World Health Organization in 1945.
 G. Brock Chisholm, “The Reestablishment of Peacetime Society,” Psychiatry: Journal of Biology and Pathology of Interpersonal Relations 9, no. 1 (February 1946), 9.
 “Undermining Morals,” http://www.cchr.org.uk/psychiatric-drugs/undermining-morals/.
 Lawrie Reznek, Evil or Ill?, 7.
 Lord Devlin, quoted by Alan Stone, Mental Health and Law: A System in Transition DHEW Pub No. (ADM) 75-176 (Rockville, MD: NIMH, 1975), 218.
 Roy Porter, Madness: A Brief History (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), 154-55.
 Ibid., 6-7.
 Ibid., 9.
 Ibid., 17.
 Peggy Noonan, Noonan: What I Saw at the Revolution (1990), chapter 2.
 Richard Dawkins, “Let’s All Stop Beating Basil’s Car,” http://edge.org/q2006/q06_9.html.
 Dawkins, “Basil’s Car.”
 Dineen, Manufacturing Victims, 155-56.
 Charles Binet-Sangle, The Madness of Jesus (1910). Quoted in Albert Schweitzer, The Psychiatric Study of Jesus, trans. Charles Joy (Orlando, FL: Magnolia, 1911), 44-45.
 William Sargant, The Times (22 August, 1974), 14.
 Evan D. Murray, Miles G. Cunningham, Bruce H. Price, “The Role of Psychotic Disorders in Religious History Considered,” The Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences 24 (2012): 410-426.
 Andrew Knapp, “Leaders Seek Changes in South Carolina Officers’ Training,” Post and Courier Online (January 14, 2017): http://www.postandcourier.com/news/leaders-seek-changes-in-south-carolina-officers-training-sled-nvestigations/article_16d5d89a-d835-11e6-8fb2-035d9606efad.html
 Daniel R. Berger II, Mental Illness: The Reality of the Spiritual Nature (Taylors, SC: Alethia International Publications, 2016).
 Daniel R. Berger II, Mental Illness: The Reality of the Spiritual Nature (Taylors, SC: Alethia Int
ernational Publications, 2016).