And the Judge has what kind of medical degree?
I don't claim to know all the details about this issue, but I do know that the term "disease" is applied to just about everything under the sun these days -- by people who stand to derive a huge financial benefit from it.
I don't think it matters. Giving a common "vice" like this status as a legal defense really ought to be a matter for the state legislature. It's absurd to expect judges to evaluate something like this, when medical experts differ widely, and unfair for the legal result to vary depending upon which judge an accused person happens to land in front of.
More and more behaviors are being found by medical science to have a genetic basis, or some other basis over which the individual can exercise no control. What the criteria should be for accepting such conditions as a legal defense, is a political question. It wouldn't surprise me if medical science soon found a clearly identifiable organic brain disorder that child rapists have, that accounts for their virtually 100% recidivism rate. But it would not automatically follow from such a finding that child rapists shouldn't be convicted and punished for their crimes.
THAT is the point!
The Judge needs to see the evidence BECAUSE she can't take the attorney's word alone at the EVIDENTIARY hearing. Even if the Judge was an MD, the ATTORNEY was supposed to provide the predicate for the conclusion.
THIS IS NOT ABOUT ALCHOLISM THIS IS ABOUT PROVIDING EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM OF DISEASE!
If anything the defendant has an ineffective assistance of counsel claim for this lawyer error.
And the Judge has what kind of medical degree?
Remember, alcoholism became a disease when INSURANCE started paying for it's treatment.