"Indeed, the trend of contemporary legal thought, especially in the USA, is to operate on the premise of the inescapability of moral responsibility and culpability. On this basis, no appeal to biology, biography or society should be allowed to weaken moral responsibility for the act, let alone to diminish the requirement that the offender be liable to control and/or punishment. In this context, the argument from biology is likely to have its most signiﬁcant impact, not in diminishing the emphasis on free will necessary to a ﬁnding of guilt, but in the determination of the sentence. This is unlikely to be in the direction of mitigation. For if antisocial conduct is indelibly inscribed in the body of the offender, reform appears more difﬁcult, and mitigation of punishment inappropriate. More likely are arguments for the long-term paciﬁcation of the biologically irredeemable individual in the name of public protection."
Yikes... So much for the argument that medicalization beats criminalization. If our medical arguments can be used to create 'biologically irredeemable' individuals (see the post on chronic, relapsing conditions below), we may be doing more harm than good. Rose goes on to point out the ways in which new neuroscientific technologies are being used to identify people "at risk" or predisposed to criminal behavior. Soon, you may not even have to commit a crime to become suspect.