|
L&O tackled it a couple years ago in an episode where a teacher developed a brain tumor causing uncontrollable promiscuity (which involved the law since kids were the nearest thing around).
The way I see it:
1. All behavior eventually boils down to chemistry so to some extent or another you can absolve anybody of fault. If they aren't at "fault" then is it fair to punish them.
2. However, if they aren't at fault but are merely hapless victims of bad brain chemistry then there is no rational reason for accepting any assumption that they'll choose not to do it again. Also, the rehabilitation ideal of incarceration goes away. So it could be argued that in the absense of "free will" the need to incarcerate those who show a tendency towards antisocial crimes becomes stronger, not weaker.
3. The side you choose will likely (and entirely coincidentally) match what you've already decided the role and value of incarceration is (protection vs. rehabilitation).
|