Earlier, I wondered about the cultural bases — and potential biases — underpinning conflicting psychiatric evaluations of Brian David Mitchell. The clashing diagnoses seemed to trap Mormons between a rock and a hard place. After all, a large part of whether Mitchell was “insane” rested on whether his religious beliefs were “bizarre”—beliefst based in the LDS faith. 

I am not the only one who asked these questions. Salt Lake City Weekly published an interesting piece about the Catch-22 Mormons faced with this Mitchell: 

Let’s say the jury of his peers finds him sane. Because we have had an eminent theologian from BYU testify that Immanuel/Mitchell’s religious writings are coherent and well-reasoned, it follows that his crime was a consequence of his beliefs, and therefore not a crime. His beliefs, after all, called for him to take a virgin as a plural wife, the first of seven times seven to enjoy what he called a “quargasm.” He is therefore not guilty by reason of sanity.

If, on the other hand, the jurors, persuaded by the psychiatrist’s testimony that Immanuel/Mitchell’s religious beliefs are bogus and bizarre, find him insane, it follows that Mormon beliefs are insane, since they are one and the same with Immanuel/Mitchell’s beliefs. Believe me, either way this turns out is not good for us down at headquarters.

What place do religious questions have in a criminal trials? In Mitchell’s case, there was probably no way to evaluate his mental health without confronting serious questions about his religious beliefs. However, if “reasonableness” is part of the test, whose religion could possibly earn a passing score? Religion is not about reason. It is about faith. 

After the jury found Mitchell guilty yesterday, several jurors spoke in front of the courthouse. One juror noted how Mitchell never spouted off about religion while kidnapping Elizabeth Smart. Instead, he used a knife to her back.

The trial transcript reveals how Mitchell manipulated others without bizarre outbursts or religious justifications:

Viti: And during the times that you observed him engage in such behavior, did you believe that he was being sincere at those times?

Smart: No.

Viti: At any of these times that he engaged with others besides you or Ms. Barzee, did he ever proclaim that he was the Davidic king?

Smart: No.

Viti: Did he ever proclaim he was the one mighty and strong?

Smart: No.

Viti: A prophet?

Smart: No.

Viti: Did he discuss polygamy with anyone?

Smart: No. Viti: Would he tell them to repent?

Smart: No.

Viti: Would you ever observe him with other people shutting his eyes, folding his hands and singing religious hymns?

Smart: Not that I can recall.

In other words, there was method to Mitchell’s madness. He used religion when it suited him.

That, more than his particular beliefs, holds the most evidentiary value—at least to me. It requires no value judgment, no faith, and no cultural bias to see it.