Does the LessWrong community have a consensus on the subject of moral accountability, to the same extent that it has a consensus on things like free will and reductionism? If so, what is that consensus?

My opinion on the subject is, essentially: it's irrational to think people are morally culpable for their actions because their behavior is completely contingent upon their neurochemistry, which they have no control over. You can't blame a psychopath for having the specific cognitive makeup that made him a psychopath. Also, things outside of his control such as environment, parenting, etc. went into making him a psychopath. So trying to put "blame" on him for doing something bad, or wanting to see him suffer "because he deserves it", is irrational. Standard determinism, really. Not a very unique or original perspective, but one that's quite at odds with the view of the general population.

I've never really seen this mentioned very much on this website. Do LessWrongers generally take this view? Are there some good articles, both on and off LessWrong, that talk about this in much detail (whether they're arguing for or against my position)? I'd appreciate it if someone recommended some to me, as I find this subject fascinating.