2

• For

  • allows us to treat criminal behaviour & prevent recidivism = saves government money
  • criminal justice system rehabilitates to prevent further behaviour , neuroscience used to treat is as well as prevent it, early diagnosis of dysfunctional brain functioning = drug treatment used to change/control violence = reduces indivs chance of re-offending, drug treatment = safer society = improve lives - eco cost of crime in UK = £124 billion/yr treating dysfunction in brain saves government money as less trials, imprisonments & compensations
  • benefits > costs as government saves money & safer society
• Against (1/2)

  • treating criminals behaviour with mandatory neurological intervention isn't ethical
  • crime = response to social context, not just dysfunctional brain, even if dysfunctional doesn't mean we can treat with neurological interventions. courts implementing interventions = denial of indivs freedom, court may offer choice (prison OR intervention) = breach of ethical issues of coercion as criminal has little choice.
• Against (2/2)

  • if neuroscientists predict determination of crime, considered unethical to treat children potential of crime. neuro-testing & intervention raises issues of free will & whether its right/wrong that criminals held responsible
  • benefits < costs as raises ethical concerns if courts implement mandatory intervention = denial of indivs freedom
• Mini conc

  • economic - saves government money
  • ethical - treating children who show signs of becoming a criminal in future = unethical - use of neuro-testing raises issues of free will