Reply

Editor:

Dr. Silverman and I (and many of the colleagues whose work I cited in my manuscript¹) agree about the critical importance of attempting to understand as fully as possible the life narrative of the subject of any forensic evaluation. We also agree as to how difficult that can be, especially when, as Dr. Silverman notes, we humans are mostly unaware of our own biases and the origins of our ideas. I would hope, however, that we not abandon the efforts of self-awareness in a nihilistic surrender to a reductionist notion that we live as automatons. Such a notion is incompatible with my beliefs about human spirituality. That not many of us achieve full enlightenment in the span of our lives is not a reason to abandon its pursuit; such hopelessness serves no purpose and diminishes us.

Dr. Silverman is right to emphasize the sufferings and trials, as well as the biological and psychological limits, of the persons we evaluate. As I put it: “The author of the forensic report, then, becomes one limited being trying to make sense of the lives of other limited beings to assist an imperfect process of justice-making” (Ref. 1, p 17). I do not believe this approach turns on the existence or non-existence of free will. Physicists may assert that there is no such thing as time,^2,3 but we all keep track of our appointments and deadlines nonetheless. Neuroscience has not yet solved “the hard problem of consciousness”,^4,5 so we cannot expect to understand the nature of its contours and confines. Again, Dr. Silverman and I agree with many others that compassion is a necessary response to such limits.