I was reading the other day about the following criminal case (link)
I find this case very interesting. It has always been one of the central tenets of our judicial system that people are personally responsible for their actions and may therefore be punished on this basis. With cases like this and recent discoveries relating genetics to behaviour, including that concentrations of particular messenger molecules in the brain are congenital and also predispose you to a violent temper we begin to blur the line between free-will and that awful 1960's B. F. Skinner style behaviourism. It seems clear now that there are a whole host of factors that can affect how people respond to certain stimuli
Genetic: It is pretty undeniable that our genetics alter everything, from our propensity for violence to our risks of going mad. Is it fair to lock up a high risk offender before they do anything? The UK government certainly thinks it might be
Social: The other half of the nature-nuture debate is [more/less/equally as] important as genetics. From talking to Gem (who, for those that don't know is a metal health nurse) about personality disorders. If, through therapy we can 'cure' somebody of their behavioural issues how should they be punished?
Biological: As in the pedophilia case discussed above if somebody is being controlled by outside influences, for example a brain tumour or perhaps a parasite, then if these factors can be removed, how should they be punished?
Personal: To what extent, considering the points above, is an individual responsible for their actions? Hell, is there even such a thing as free will or are we really just the sum of our genetics and experiences.
Much of our response to these questions rests upon our attitudes to punishment. Is it main purpose retribution? vengeance? deterrence? rehabilitation? safety? enforcing morality? all of the above? none of the above?
Unfortunately the answer, as is so often the case, isn't black and white. There are elements of each of the points above in our attitudes towards jail. As science marches inexorably forward it provides us with many interesting moral dilemmas. Can we lock up high risk offenders, before they commit a crime? How should we punish people that have been cured of their violent nature? (as per usual Richard Dawkins argues most eloquently about these points)
I just hope we don't end up seeing court cases end in the following way:
"Mr. CMB, of the crime of writing a shitty blog you are found guilty. 23% of the blame is found to lie with your genetics, 45% may be accounted for by your upbringing and current mental state, and 32% is due to your own free will. You will therefore undergo a course of personal therapy, a course of genetic treatment and serve 32% of your sentence in jail. This course of treatments is expected to bring you up to the minimum social, moral and ethical standards expected in today's society."
p.s. No wordless wednesday this week. My funny pictures folder is on the computer at home
IN THE late 1990s a previously blameless American began collecting child pornography and propositioning children. On the day before he was due to be sentenced to prison for his crimes, he had his brain scanned. He had a tumour. When it had been removed, his paedophilic tendencies went away. When it started growing back, they returned. When the regrowth was removed, they vanished again.I find this case very interesting. It has always been one of the central tenets of our judicial system that people are personally responsible for their actions and may therefore be punished on this basis. With cases like this and recent discoveries relating genetics to behaviour, including that concentrations of particular messenger molecules in the brain are congenital and also predispose you to a violent temper we begin to blur the line between free-will and that awful 1960's B. F. Skinner style behaviourism. It seems clear now that there are a whole host of factors that can affect how people respond to certain stimuli
Genetic: It is pretty undeniable that our genetics alter everything, from our propensity for violence to our risks of going mad. Is it fair to lock up a high risk offender before they do anything? The UK government certainly thinks it might be
Social: The other half of the nature-nuture debate is [more/less/equally as] important as genetics. From talking to Gem (who, for those that don't know is a metal health nurse) about personality disorders. If, through therapy we can 'cure' somebody of their behavioural issues how should they be punished?
Biological: As in the pedophilia case discussed above if somebody is being controlled by outside influences, for example a brain tumour or perhaps a parasite, then if these factors can be removed, how should they be punished?
Personal: To what extent, considering the points above, is an individual responsible for their actions? Hell, is there even such a thing as free will or are we really just the sum of our genetics and experiences.
Much of our response to these questions rests upon our attitudes to punishment. Is it main purpose retribution? vengeance? deterrence? rehabilitation? safety? enforcing morality? all of the above? none of the above?
Unfortunately the answer, as is so often the case, isn't black and white. There are elements of each of the points above in our attitudes towards jail. As science marches inexorably forward it provides us with many interesting moral dilemmas. Can we lock up high risk offenders, before they commit a crime? How should we punish people that have been cured of their violent nature? (as per usual Richard Dawkins argues most eloquently about these points)
I just hope we don't end up seeing court cases end in the following way:
"Mr. CMB, of the crime of writing a shitty blog you are found guilty. 23% of the blame is found to lie with your genetics, 45% may be accounted for by your upbringing and current mental state, and 32% is due to your own free will. You will therefore undergo a course of personal therapy, a course of genetic treatment and serve 32% of your sentence in jail. This course of treatments is expected to bring you up to the minimum social, moral and ethical standards expected in today's society."
p.s. No wordless wednesday this week. My funny pictures folder is on the computer at home
