Quote:
|
The Supreme Court's underage execution decision has us slipping far down the slope of universal neurological exculpation, and it raises interesting questions about what standard we should use to hold people responsible in criminal cases. I would suggest an old-fashioned one: If a person can distinguish between right and wrong, then we hold her responsible for her actions. Interestingly, the AMA's amicus brief noted, "Cognitive experts have shown that the difference between teenage and adult behavior is not a function of the adolescent's inability to distinguish right from wrong."
|
This day had to come eventually. As science figures out more and more about our brains, new treatments for neurological shortcomings will follow. There might even be a pill that 'cures' criminal impulses one day.
Until then, we'll keep running into these foggy patches where we're not sure whether to cure someone or punish them. So, we rely on moral judgements. My question is, will the future "cure" for criminal impulse also cure the moral deficit that causes one to obey that impulse? And which are we punishing?