Similarly, in 2000, a man named “Alex” (fake name, but real case) suddenly developed pedophilic impulses at age 40, and was eventually convicted of child molestation. Turns out he also had a brain tumor, and once it was removed, his sexual interests went back to normal. …
At the very least, it seems like we would certainly be justified in judging Charles and Alex differently from people who don’t suffer from brain tumors.
Alex was not punished for the impulses he felt. Rather, he was punished for molesting a child. Judge Charles and Alex differently, if you wish, because you think you understand the causality better. But don’t punish them differently. Actions should be punished, not inclinations. Punish because they did a bad thing, not because they are bad people.
If you justify punishment as deterence, you are still justified in punishing Charles and Alex. Feel sorry for them, if you wish, but don’t forget to also feel sorry for their victims. Life sucks sometimes.
In general, we don’t punish people purely for actions. For most crimes, having the appropriate criminal intent is a required component of the crime. No mens rea, no crime. That’s why we don’t prosecute people who have a stroke and lose control of their car for vehicular assault.
I think the tumor case is analogous—the tumor was an unexpected factor, not caused in any direct way by the perpetrator’s prior choices or beliefs.
Alex was not punished for the impulses he felt. Rather, he was punished for molesting a child. Judge Charles and Alex differently, if you wish, because you think you understand the causality better. But don’t punish them differently. Actions should be punished, not inclinations. Punish because they did a bad thing, not because they are bad people.
If you justify punishment as deterence, you are still justified in punishing Charles and Alex. Feel sorry for them, if you wish, but don’t forget to also feel sorry for their victims. Life sucks sometimes.
In general, we don’t punish people purely for actions. For most crimes, having the appropriate criminal intent is a required component of the crime. No mens rea, no crime. That’s why we don’t prosecute people who have a stroke and lose control of their car for vehicular assault.
I think the tumor case is analogous—the tumor was an unexpected factor, not caused in any direct way by the perpetrator’s prior choices or beliefs.