Retribution, Incapacitation, Deterrence And Rehabilitation

Jail and prison are defined as a place where criminals go when convicted of a crime or waiting for trail. The law defines a criminal as someone who has broken the law. Being legally responsible is being able to know that one's actions were wrong and still choosing to behave in an illegal manner. Criminal responsibility in court can become blurry as the criminal may either be mentally ill or have brain damage and therefore have no real control over their actions. For the purpose of this paper, I will only focus on brain damage and the law. Due to the fact that brain damage can cause a switch in one's behaviour, I believe that if a criminal act has occurred the individual should not be held responsible for their actions. Different measures should

Each purpose playing a role in protecting society from these individuals, warning others about the consequences of breaking the law, and helping the individuals in becoming law-abiding citizens once again. If these four goals are the purpose of prison than only one would be fit for an individual with damage to the brain; that would be incapacitation. Incapacitation is the removal of someone from society so they can no longer harm other citizens. This would be the only benefit for society because the threat that the individual brings and removed. Retribution is punishment for one's crimes, deterrence is the prevention of future crimes, and rehabilitation is ways in which the prison works to change the individual into law-abiding citizens. Retribution will hold no meaning to someone with a brain damage because of their inability to entirely control their actions. Retribution may actually cause more confusion to the individual as they may realize that they are being punished but their lack of control will cause the punishment to be an ineffective and confusing time in prison. Deterrence will also hold no effect because if the individual is acting on impulse, and behaving in a violent and aggressive manner because of their brain damage then no amount of time in prison will keep them from committing the same or worst crimes when they are released. The last goal being

An interesting finding in this article is Kroeber weights in on how some brain researchers claim that everyone is guiltless when they commit a crime because they can not do anything else. This argument is faulty as it implies that everyone is a slave to their biology and the functioning of their brain. The problem with this argument is that it comes back to the nature verse nurture argument, and it implies that everyone is influenced only by nature. There have been countless articles and experiments that show that both nature and nurture play a role in how people develop to be the person they currently are. This argument is also counterintuitive for the progress that needs to be taken in the courtroom. If everyone is guiltless from their crimes then humans become nothing more than programmed machines that are hardwired to be a certain way. This is an unsettling thought as it suggests that we have no free will. Kroeber also talks about how in the early 1900’s criminals were not seen as deviant but instead they were seen as sick brains. Fortunately, science and technology have come a long way since then and more has been learned about the brain and the