Treatbility opens a hell of a can of worms.
There's a link between antisocial (violent) behaviour and a mutation in the MAOA gene, for example; in that case, there seems to be a reasonable argument for the behaviour being a symptom of a deeper pathology, and so something that (a) shouldn't be punished, and (b) should be treated.
There's also evidence of a link between lead pollution and violence. It's mainly circumstantial at the moment, but it's still reasonably powerful.
We know that empathy can be boosted by oxytocin. So suppose that someone's lack of empathy could be shown to be related to a neuroendocrine glitch in relation to oxytocin: again, there'd be a candidate for treatability there.
Indeed, why shouldn't we think of antisocial behaviour as treatable? (There's a lovely line in Nietzsche somewhere along the lines that Christianity invented free will in order to be able to punish people; the underlying thought is interesting. What if punishment is the wrong approach because behaviour isn't chosen? It seems worth considering to me...)
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Tue 16 Sep 2014, 14:19,
Share,
Reply)
I absolutely agree that punishment is in most cases not productive in the slightest. It certainly isn't a deterrent when criminality is pathological. In reference to irrational criminality, at least.
A friend of my father who is a clinical psychologist and works at a London acute MH unit always spoke of punishment as being absolutely useless in practice. And just speaking on a personal level I don't believe in the concept of penal harm beyond deprivation of liberty. I think all we have a duty to do, as a society, is to remove bad people to prevent them from doing more bad things. Deprivation of liberty is enough. Many would disagree.
I have read some of Dr. James Fallon's stuff on the "warrior gene". Absolute fascinating; though I've not read anything about the possibility of any related treatments, beyond theory. All I know from my own understanding is that pathologically "bad" people are probably the hardest psychological cases to treat in practice - incidentally, my dad's friend also said quite bluntly that personality disorders "are untreatable" - assuming they don't end up running corporate banks or countries, of course.
(, Tue 16 Sep 2014, 14:39, Share, Reply)
Rehabiliation of offenders has always been based on this idea that prisons and hospitals should have a similar function and that criminality is treatable
Whether crime was caused by race, mental illness, poverty, or bumps on your head, there has long been a belief that humans are not responsible for their crimes. Genetics is not going to radically change this tradition.
So, from the 18th century, punishment inside the prison was one method to treat the disease - a dog or cat is not responsible for its bad behaviour, but we correct it through punishment and reward.
The problem is that this tradition attacks the idea of free will and personal liberty. Whether we treat prisoners through punishment, drug therapies, genetic therapies, psychotherapies, etc, (and even the euthanasia solution) we are still denying the liberty of the individual, objectifying the person, and travelling the road of dehumanisation.
(, Tue 16 Sep 2014, 15:23, Share, Reply)
Hang on...
You're confusing free will and liberty - which aren't the same thing at all. And you're assuming that (a) there is such a thing as free will, based on apparently nothing more than a desire that there should be; and (b) that freedom must be understood in one particular way.
I don't see what worrying about dehumanisation has to do with it - if the world is thus and so, whether or not its dehumanising is neither here nor there.
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Tue 16 Sep 2014, 16:19,
Share,
Reply)