The latest issue of the Economist states that a certain pedophile in the United States only exhibited that behavior while he had a brain tumor. When the tumor was removed, he was no longer a threat since that specific predeliction is neurological in nature.
Obviously the vast majority of criminals cannot blame a physiological disorder for their actions, but the article raises an interesting idea: Biology may have a greater affect on a person’s actions that previously known.
What are the implications of this statement? That people are not completely responsible for their actions because they cannot completely control their physiology?
Or, given that this assumption is true, are people indirectly responsible for their behavior because they can affect their physiologies through diet, exercise and other methods? (Though this could lead to some silly modes of thought: “I robbed that bank because I only eat doughnuts for breakfast!”)
Or, if an unhealthy physiology does cause some criminal impulses that cannot be restrained through free will, then do governments have the right to store and track DNA (as Great Britain is doing) to see which citizens may be prone to anti-social behavior for the greater good, as the article mentions?
The questions are immense — and somewhat frightening.
