There was a recent Law and Order episode where a 15-year old rapist was diagnosed with some sort of brain disorder that made him more "prone" to such activity. This disorder (I forget the name right off hand) was verified by psychologist B.D. Wong, who made a remarkable admission. He said that the accountability of those who suffer from this disorder is hotly debated, depending on what point this brain disorder is able to overcome "reason". (I'm skeptical of the religion of pop-psychology as well, but that is another post for another time). The sympathic victim, due to the disorder suffered by her assailant, decided to push for an extremely light sentence.
Obviously, such a defense is nonsense, but I fear it is only a matter of time before we are treated with a plethora of "my brain made me do it" defense efforts in our courtrooms. I was able to point out to several of my friends how such a defense is consistent with the atheistic/evolutionary worldview. Once we have reduced everything to mere genetics and biochemistry, on what basis can we hold anyone responsible for their actions? How can we expect a person with any sort of brain disorder to use "reason" that comes from that disordered brain. If there is no spiritual side of man, then we should expect his brain, consisting of the way it evolved, along with a lifetime of stimuli and experiences that helped shape it, to be the ultimate cause of all his actions. He simply cannot help himself, unless the atheist can account for some part of man that can overcome his own brain.
An atheistic worldview can have no real "law and order", but merely platitudes shaped by either statist tyrants or "mob rule" public opinion polls (the herding instinct). The only real law and order can come from God, whose yoke is easy and whose burden is light.