THIS TUESDAY, fifteen-year-old Christopher Pittman was found guilty on two counts of murder and sentenced to up to thirty years in a South Carolina prison. Three years ago, he choked a second-grader on his school bus, which provoked Pittman's grandfather to discipline him. Unfortunately, the chain of events did not end there: Angry at his grandparents, Pittman retrieved the shotgun his father gave him as a gift and shot them four times while they were in bed. He then proceeded to burn down their house and run away in his grandparents' SUV, later claiming he was kidnapped by a black man who was also responsible for his grandparents' deaths.
Most interesting about this case however, was the defense's central claim: that Pittman was acting under the influence of the popular anti-depressant Zoloft, which allegedly rendered him incapable to reason or tell right from wrong. Fortunately, this audacious and simply unfounded claim was rejected by the jury. This case was particularly important in that it sent a message to lawyers nationwide, warning that basing a defense upon an unfounded claim against a drug that helps many Americans cannot and should not be accepted.
The defense presented by Pittman's lawyers was simply bogus. As Judge Danny Pieper reminded the jury, when the defense invokes "involuntary intoxication" as an excusing condition for a crime, they accept the burden of proof. The three conditions necessary for a successful involuntary intoxication defense were summed up by The New York Times: "the defendant must have been unaware that the drug had a potentially intoxicating effect, must have taken the drug according to a doctor's prescription, and must have been rendered incapable of distinguishing right from wrong."
While the first condition is debatable and the second is satisfied, the third is most contentious in nature and, given the available research on Zoloft and similar antidepressants, remains largely unsatisfied. Selective Serotonin Re-uptake Inhibitors (SSRIs) such as Zoloft have never been shown capable of provoking the opprobrious behavior that ended the lives of Pittman's grandparents. Quite the opposite, most research has shown these drugs to be extremely successful in treating depression with a minimal amount of side effects. This lack of research was reflected in a statement by Pfizer, the maker of the drug, which explained that "there is no scientific evidence to suggest that Zoloft contributes to violent behavior in either adults or children." This falls far from linking Zoloft to Pittman's wrongdoing, and the lawyers acted reprehensibly, reallocating blame from the defendant onto a socially beneficial drug.
Equally important, as the prosecution highlighted, Zoloft did not (and as research shows, could not) incapacitate Pittman's ability to discern right from wrong. SSRIs in general have not been shown to have this capability, but even more specifically, Pittman clearly displayed not only his ability to reason, but an understanding that what he did was wrong. Pittman's decision to wait until his grandparents went to bed before committing the crime unequivocally demonstrates that his crime was not one of blurred passion, but one that he planned and executed -- generally referred to as premeditated murder. More importantly, the defense's argument that he was incapable of coherent moral judgment seems even more preposterous given the efforts he undertook to avoid responsibility for the murders.
In this interesting case, there are many individuals that bear some blame -- Pittman's mother, who abandoned him soon after he was born; Pittman's father, who bought a shotgun for a young, depressed son with a history of violent tendencies; or even doctors in general, who seem to be more concerned with the profits of pharmaceuticals than actually diagnosing and curing their patients. However, while the responsibility can be easily diffused, Pittman did commit murder, and regardless of the fact that he was a 95-pound "nice, shy Christian boy" (a defense actually uttered by one of Pittman's lawyers, Andy Vickery), his claims against Zoloft consisted of desperation, not substance.
While it is particularly tempting to limit discussion to the case and its immediate decision, commentary should also extend to the drug being attacked, Zoloft, given that it was prescribed to 32.7 million Americans in 2003 alone. Pittman's lawyers irresponsibly slandered a drug that has significantly improved the lives of millions of Americans. The active questioning of drugs should be strongly encouraged by researchers and scientists, not by lawyers simply trying to make a name for themselves when their knowledge of the drug is depressingly low.
Sina Kian's column appears Thursdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at skian@cavalierdaily.com
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 3 days agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | January 9, 2025Every student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
