Over the past few months, several organizations have reported a sharp rise in hate crimes. The increase appears to be largely due to a staggering amount of anti-Semitic attacks that have been taking place. Repeated bomb threats and targeted vandalism are among some of the most terrifying attacks experienced.

President Trump and his administration have been very vocal about their disapproval of the hateful behavior.

However, despite Trump’s repeated condemnation, April Ryan, a correspondent for Urban Radio Networks, had the audacity during the White House’s Press Briefing earlier this week to suggest that the Trump Administration was not taking the rise in hate crimes seriously.

Press Secretary Sean Spicer’s response to the reporter’s suggestion was absolutely brilliant, as seen in the video below.

After first acknowledging that the White House was absolutely taking the rise in hate crime seriously, he criticized those in the media that jumped to conclusions about who made the recent bomb threats towards Jewish centers across the country.

Spicer scolded reporters, stating, “there was an immediate jump to criticize folks on the right, and to denounce…people on the right and ask them to condemn [the threats], and it turns out that it wasn’t someone from the right, and the president from the get-go said ‘I bet you it’s not someone from the right.’”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KX20ujyT5GA

Since the attacks started, numerous people, like CNN’s Reza Aslan and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, have insisted Trump and his supporters are to blame. Steven Goldstein, the Executive Director of the Anne Frank Center For Mutual Respect, actually accused the President of being an anti-Semite, showing him no respect. He was even targeted by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL).

During his joint address to Congress, President Trump made it explicitly clear that he would not tolerate hate. He directly condemned the recent attacks and claimed they “remind us that while we may be a nation divided on policies, we are a country that stands united in condemning hate and evil in all of its very ugly forms.”

He also spoke out against the attacks during a speech he gave after a tour of the National Museum of African American History and Culture in Washington, D.C., calling the attacks “horrible” and “evil.”

“This tour was a meaningful reminder of why we have to fight bigotry, intolerance, and hatred in all of its very ugly forms. The anti-Semitic threats targeting our Jewish community and community centers are horrible and are painful and a very sad reminder of the work that still must be done to root out hate and prejudice and evil,” he added.

Spicer’s critical response came after several major media outlets, including the Washington Post, Daily Beast, Slate, and Salon, criticized Trump for questioning who was responsible for the attacks.

Trump may be hinting that anti-Semitic incidents are false flags. It wouldn’t be the first time. https://t.co/U4S67wJCnF — Washington Post (@washingtonpost) February 28, 2017

Indeed, towards the end of February 2017, Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro confirmed that during their meeting the President suggested there may be more to the story. To many people’s surprise, he was right.

According to Reuters, Israeli police have arrested a 19-year-old teen with dual Israeli-U.S. citizenship suspected of being responsible for a large number of the bomb threats made this year. The arrest completely undermines the growing narrative blaming Trump and his supporters for the attacks. Many are now calling on the ADL and others to apologize for their defamatory comments.

Instead of immediately pointing fingers, accusations should be held back until more evidence is made available. Doing so would dramatically reduce the amount of false and potentially damaging statements made against those that are innocent.

There have been one hundred recorded bomb threats in over thirty states since the beginning of the year, according to CNN. Several of those states have been particularly affected, as seen in the graphic below. In Irvine, California, nearly one thousand people were forced to evacuate a Jewish community center after a threat was made. In Philadelphia, an attack at a Jewish cemetery left nearly one hundred headstones destroyed. And in New York City, the NYPD reported that hate crimes have nearly doubled.

On top of the threats against Jewish community centers, this suspect was also apparently responsible for a bomb threat against a Delta Airlines flight in January 2015 at New York’s John F. Kennedy International Airport.

The teen’s identity has yet to be disclosed. However, his lawyer, Galit Bash, has come forward and stated that his client has a brain tumor that can affect his cognitive abilities, causing “irrational” behavior. This is not the first time a brain tumor was said to have caused mayhem. Charles Whitman, a distraught 25-year-old, now known as the “Texas Tower Sniper,” was responsible for even greater chaos.

On August 1st, 1966, he brought a foot locker filled with guns and ammunition all the way up to an observation deck atop the University of Texas Tower in Austin. Once at the top, the ex-Marine began indiscriminately murdering people. He was ultimately shot and killed by police officers, but not before slaughtering fourteen and injuring thirty-one innocent people over the course of 96 minutes.

During his autopsy, a doctor discovered a “pecan sized” brain tumor. It was later concluded that although a relationship could not be conclusively determined, “the tumor conceivably could have contributed to his inability to control his emotions and actions.” However, this introduces an important question: If someone lacks the ability to control their emotions and actions, should they still be held accountable for their crimes?

In a 1990 murder trial, Antonio Bustamante was charged with homicide for brutally beating a man to death during a robbery. Before the attack, he had already been arrested 29 times. Over the course of the trial, his lawyers managed to obtain a brain scan and proved that his prefrontal cortex was damaged. Since his brain wasn’t normal, he avoided the death penalty.

A year later, Herbert Weinstein was accused of murdering his wife. However, his lawyers argued he was not guilty of the crime because he had a sizable brain tumor. They asked the judge to admit the defendant’s brain scan into court. The judge affirmed their request. The positron emission tomography (PET) scan showed the defendant did in fact have a large brain tumor. The image was so compelling it forced prosecutors to reconsider the likelihood of a conviction.

After concluding the jury would take one look at what appeared to be a big black hole in his brain and think something was almost certainly wrong, they changed their mind and offered a plea agreement instead. He ended up taking the deal and was sentenced to seven years instead of 25.

And in 1999, Donta Page avoided the death penalty after it was shown that his prefrontal cortex was not functioning properly. Cases like the ones mentioned above have brought modern neuroscience into the courtroom. They’ve also brought our entrenched notions about morality, motivation, and consciousness into question.

As our understanding of the brain continues to advance, it may one day be feasible to accurately predict whether or not someone will be a criminal. If it became possible to do so with 100 percent certainty, would it be appropriate to take action before anyone gets hurt? Or does this type of preemptive action go too far by giving the government too much power?

Trump and his administration are actively trying to combat hate crimes similar to these. If partisan reporters continue to suggest that he is doing otherwise, Spicer will keep educating them about the facts. But if the teen’s lawyers manage to demonstrate that there is in fact a brain tumor, he may end up getting off lightly for the chaos he caused. Should he still be found guilty and punished normally even if it’s shown that he literally couldn’t control himself?