Blog
The Ponies Made Me Do It
Former NBA official Tim Donaghy was sentenced to 15 months in prison last week for gambling on NBA games, some of which he himself officiated. The interesting thing about this case is not the question of whether or not the defendant was guilty. This was not a “whodunit?” case; Donaghy openly admitted his guilt at the trial. The interesting thing was his argument for why he should not go to prison.
Donaghy’s defense: he is a gambling “addict.” In a statement filed in a Brooklyn court, treatment counselor Stephen Block said Donaghy “could not stop himself from gambling.” (See here.) According to Block, gambling is an “illness,” a “hidden disease” which compels its victim to break the law against his will. This kind of testimony was the cornerstone of Donaghy’s defense.
This view is very widespread, and is not limited to gambling. Drug abusers, alcoholics, porn fanatics, and wife-beaters all claim that their self-destructive behavior is a result of forces beyond their control.
Whatever the facts of this particular case, being an addict does not exempt a person from the law because an addict still chooses his actions.
Consider a pedophile who is sexually attracted to young children and abuses children by acting on his attraction. Whatever the cause of his desire, there is nothing inherent in the desire that necessitates his acting on it. Whatever psychological obstacles—and they may be significant—such a man has to overcome to rehabilitate his desire, he still retains the choice of whether to act on it or not.
No matter what a man’s habits or emotional state (leaving aside the truly insane), he is always capable of making a choice. The desire to commit self-destructive acts does not compel one to act. Desires can only rule the man who allows emotions to dictate his life.
Discussion
5 comments for “The Ponies Made Me Do It”
Post a comment
Navigation
Objectivism
The Undercurrent's cultural commentary is based on Ayn Rand's philosophy, Objectivism. Objectivism, which animates Ayn Rand's fiction, is a systematic philosophy of life. It holds that the universe is orderly and comprehensible, that man survives by reason, that his life and happiness comprise his highest moral purpose, and that he flourishes only in a society that protects his individual rights.Event Calendar
And even if the premise that the disease literally takes over one’s volition and compels him to take a particular actions, at some point he chose to expose himself to that disease.
If I go in with gangsters and they threaten to kill my family if I don’t rob a bank for them, I’ve willingly put myself in that position.
it’s so refreshing to find people who sees addiction as a choice. i know i am addicted to cigarrettes. but i also know that I choose to smoke every single one. i do. i don’t let neither my emotions nor my body takes control over my mind, my will. I am the master and commander. each so called man should be.
The heart of the “is addiction a disease or not?” debate surely lies in the definition of the words addiction and disease.
The word disease is usually taken to imply a non-volitional state of physical or mental dysfunction. Even if one has knowingly infected oneself with a disease the course and consequence of that disease is beyond one’s volition.
Even if you inject yourself with tuberculosis then you are just as ill as someone who contracts it normally.
Therefore, if you define addiction as a disease, even if the addict at one point faced a choice they no longer do and are no longer responsible for their actions. There will be some point on the addiction continuum where the addiction changes from a series of linked choices to something more disease-like and non-volitional.
Perhaps the moral or ethical status of addiction-driven crime stems not from whether the addict’s behaviour is non-volitional but from whether the addict could reasonably be said to have been aware of their condition. If they were “aware” (indicated perhaps through attempts to stop or moderate the behaviour) and they could be shown not to have taken steps to prevent their behaviour leading to crime then they would be morally and legally responsible for their actions.
There are a number of contradictions still inherent in this analysis.
Need more coffee (I may be addicted).
Mr. Banks,
I fail to see how setting off a chain of events without considering the end result is, in any way, a morally acceptable action. If a man, tempted by the desire to take drugs, chooses not to consider the addictive, disease-like nature of those drugs clearly that is an act of volition.
There is simply too much evidence out there for an adult to reasonably plead that he was unaware (of even the possibility) that drugs take a psychological hold on the user. This is especially relevant when the defendant himself is the one claiming the addictive, disease-like nature of some action which everyone else thought to be completely, always under volitional control.
The other point not yet mentioned is mental strength. Criminal choices tears down a persons mind, while moral choices and constructive endeavors like going to the gym, strengthens a persons mind. Notice how irritable evil people are, reflecting their weak minds. Hence the “I couldn’t help it” or the “its too hard” excuse, is a self imposed condition.