As always, when I write this kind of column about determinism, and in particular about the behavior of Harvey Weinstein, I must begin by saying that his behavior was reprehensible, immensely harmful, and warrants severe punishment, judicially so if the courts find him guilty of rape or sexual assault. I weep for the women who felt they had to choose between their careers and becoming an unwilling victim of Weinstein’s sexual dominance. And I abhor thinking that women are still subject to this kind of behavior far more often than I, at least, suspected.

But what Weinstein’s behavior wasn’t was something he chose, in the sense that he could have refrained from being a predator.

Given Weinstein’s environment and genes, he could not have behaved other than the way he did. His ultimate punishment must rest on deterrence (to keep others from practicing this kind of harassment), sequestration (keeping him away from women and situations in which he could practice sexual assault) and rehabilitation (if that is possible, and I’m not ruling it out, even if he “reforms” only out of fear of disclosure).

Yet Frank Bruni’s column in today’s New York Times, “The sham of Harvey Wenstein’s rehab“, assumes over and over again that Weinstein could have behaved differently—that he simply made the wrong choices, the immoral choices, repeatedly.

Those of you who are determinists, and I hope that’s most of you, know that’s not true. Weinstein should be mocked, shamed, and punished for what he did, but for the acts he committed, not because we think he could have refrained from his predatory behavior. That behavior has been enacted, and couldn’t have been enacted otherwise. Our opprobrium can, however, keep him and others from repeating it. So yes, you can call him a “creep”—another form of deterrence and shaming—but realize at the same time that Weinstein’s actions were compelled by factors beyond his control. He had no control, since he had no “could have done otherwise” free will.

Bruni is quite concerned to refute the notion that Weinstein had a “sex addiction,” a narcissistic personality disorder, or some other mental illness. Well, I’m not competent to decide whether Weinstein fits any profiles given in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual used by psychiatrists. Perhaps he had a “power disorder”: an addiction to using his power over women’s careers to force sex upon them. Bruni, however, chooses to diagnose Weinstein as a simple creep, free from any psychopathologies. He, says Bruni, was simply a bad character, a jerk, and the implication of Brunis entire column is that he could have refrained from being a creep:

Our turn toward psychiatry as a Rosetta Stone for wretchedness is on vivid display in discussions about Donald Trump. Aghast critics chalk up his self-obsession to narcissistic personality disorder and his fictions to pathological lying. But while they mean to condemn him, their language does the opposite: A head case has significantly less to be ashamed of and to apologize for than a garden-variety jerk does.

Their language also distorts the relationship between malady and conduct. “The underlying assumption is that if you have a psychiatric diagnosis, you’re unfit to serve,” Maria Oquendo, the chairwoman of the psychiatry department at the University of Pennsylvania’s medical school, told me. But, she added, there are people with narcissistic personality disorder and an array of other clinical designations who “are functioning brilliantly.” Mettle and morals, along with the management of these conditions, come into play.

. . . But to appraise Weinstein’s behavior in full dress as well as in the buff is to recognize that as bunk. There are indeed bad characters. He was among the worst of them before rehab, and I wouldn’t hope for much better after.

Indeed, Weinstein’s “excuses” may be malarkey, or self-serving bullpucky, but make no mistake about it: he did have a psychopathology, even if it isn’t formally defined, or even if we don’t understand how his genes and environment changed his brain in a way that caused him to behave in horrible ways. He was no more able to stop preying on woman than would a true “sex addict” (if there is such a thing).

There is no meaningful distinction (except perhaps for treatment) between Bruni’s diagnosis of Weinstein as a “bad character” and a psychiatrist’s diagnosis of him as having a harmful mental pathology.He did have a harmful mental pathology, but because we can’t shoehorn it into conventional psychiatry, we fob it off as his being a “creep”. Is there a difference that should affect how he’s treated? I don’t think so, except in the unlikely case that he has a brain tumor or clear neurological aberration that can be dealt with medically. And even if he doesn’t, that doesn’t mean he could have behaved otherwise.

The only reason I see that Bruni would write the following is that he sees some meaningful distinction between psychopathology (formal diagnosis) and harmful predatory behavior (a “creep”):

Three times [Weinstein] used the same three syllables — “therapy” — and thus cast himself as a patient at the mercy of an affliction. Perhaps. Or maybe he’s just a merciless tyrant and creep, and to dress him in clinical language is to let him off the hook.

Weinstein is of course a creep, but he’s also “mentally ill”—if we define the latter as having a behavior that he couldn’t control that was harmful to other people and society as a whole. Yes, it’s offensive to hear excuses that sound lame and what may be dishonest pleas that he simply needs therapy and all will be well.  Well, he needs punishment and therapy; punishment to set an example for others and keep him away from situations where he can use power to coerce sex, and therapy to fix his behavior.

Therapy may not work, but why do people write it off so quickly? If he violated the law, he should be jailed (though America’s jails are dire places, and predicated on retributive justice), and whether or not he is jailed, he needs therapy so he doesn’t repeat his behavior.

What Bruni doesn’t realize—perhaps because he is a free-will libertarian and thinks Weinstein could have refrained from his acts—is that there’s no substantive difference between Weinstein and someone who did what he did, but because of a brain disorder. Weinstein had a brain disorder, though it may not be detectable by examining the brain and finding weird wiring or brain tumors. He is a creep but also has a psychopathology. He is responsible for what he did, in that the individual known as Harvey Weinstein harmed a lot of women and must be disciplined, but he’s not responsible for making bad choices.

The kind of outraged column emitted by Bruni can come only from an internalized sense of true “could-have-done otherwise” free will. I don’t care what you call Weinstein’s problem; in the end he had some mental issues that were harmful to others. For what he did, punishment, shunning, and ire are all appropriate, for those reactions themselves may deter others from following in his footsteps, and rehab is also needed, for he may not be beyond rehabilitation. But please don’t tell us, Mr. Bruni, that, given the situations he found himself in, Weinstein could have refrained from what he did. Under any scientific theory of human behavior, that isn’t true.

I’m sure people will get angry and say that I’m excusing Weinstein, for people are retributive in nature and most surely feel that Weinstein could have behaved other than how he did. Yet I’m not excusing his behavior by any means: it was horrible. This is an explanation, and a plea for people like Bruni to take a more scientific attitude and see that we are all victims of our genes and environments. When those factors come together in a certain way (e.g., a career that gives you power over women and a lack of respect for women), they produce a Harvey Weinstein. Saying he’s simply a “creep” rather than a psychopath may make you feel better, but it’s misleading and obscurantist.

h/t: Stephen

p.s. I’m aware this is repetitive, but I’m banging it out at the airport right before boarding.