wedrifid comments on Crime and punishment - Less Wrong

39 Post author: PhilGoetz 24 March 2011 09:53PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (189)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: PhilGoetz 27 March 2011 02:58:09AM 2 points [-]

The April 2010 Scientific American has an article by Michael Gazzaniga (a famous cognitive neuroscientist), "Neuroscience in the courtroom", partly about this issue. He writes:

A neuroimaging tool or method that could reliably identify psychopaths would be useful at the sentencing phase of a trial because it could help determine whether the defendant might deserve [my emphasis] medical confinement and treatment rather than punitive incarceration.

This is what we see most commonly in debate on the issue: Not a reasoned defense of any of the various positions, nor an argument why sentencing in a particular case should be done for punishment, crime prevention, or deterrence; but blithe unawareness that there are any considerations other than what the defendant "deserves".

Comment author: wedrifid 27 March 2011 03:16:03AM *  1 point [-]

Perhaps they are simply implicitly assuming that the threat of being forcibly confined and subject to medical 'treatment' by those who decided that you are broken and need to be 'fixed' constitutes a rather significant punitive deterrent in its own right. People don't usually want to be institutionalised.

The obvious caveat is that voluntary medical treatment for mental health issues must be freely accessible and more pleasant than the forcible kind. Those who wish to proactively prevent themselves from acting out on criminal insanity must have the option of doing so without deliberately committing a crime in order to game the system. Unfortunately those with mental health problems are a notoriously neglected class worldwide. Significant cultural change would be required before this criminal justice policy was coherent.