On Tue, 19 Apr 2005, Doug Henwood wrote:
> So where do you draw the line? I don't really know the answer, but a pure
> determinism is no more satisfying than an ethic of total individual
> responsibility. I characterized Zeynep's piece as "provocative" not as a
> journalistic cliche, but because it really is.
>
> We can say poverty breeds crime, but would you object to the prosecution of
> murderers, rapists, and thieves on that grounds?
>
I pretty much agree with behaviorists on this: I heartily support prosecution of criminals because it gives us an opportunity to remove the person from the environment that helped shape their behavior and expose the person to new reinforcement contingencies that encourage new patterns of behavior (e.g., education, job training, and social skills training all cause massive reductions in recidivism rates, perjorative asides about "hardened criminals" and "bleeding heart liberal social programs" notwithstanding). The question about whether or not poor criminals "deserve" prosecution because they "freely" chose their behavior is idle moral philosophy: it literally and practically doesn't matter.
Miles