4 ms·

This just rehashes an old (and fallacious) argument under the guise of neuroscience. Bobert Blatchford tried to push the same view 100 years ago (see his articl

This just rehashes an old (and fallacious) argument under the guise of neuroscience. Bobert Blatchford tried to push the same view 100 years ago (see his article "Defense of the Bottom Dog"). He didn't convince many, though. There are some puzzles about the concept of "deserved punishment" (what do we say in cases of brain tumors?? omg!), but it isn't clear that we can reconceive of criminal justice on the model of putting someone in quarantine (where we don't blame them, but force them into a room for public safety; we also give them goodies to compensate for how we treat them..)

Symmetry 15y ago
To the extent that our modern justice system is based on rehabilitation I think we're already pretty close to the model you seem to be saying is untenable. I only skimmed Blachford's article just now, but he seems to be saying that no criminal is responsible for his actions, which is very different from the tack taken by by this article, which distinguishes criminals who are responsible for their actions and those who aren't.