Dealing with Criminal Behavior: the Inaccuracy of the Quarantine Analogy

Abstract

Pereboom and Caruso propose the quarantine model as an alternative to existing models of criminal justice. They appeal to the established public health practice of quarantining people, which is believed to be effective and morally justified, to explain why -in criminal justice- it is also morally acceptable to detain wrongdoers, without assuming the existence of a retrospective moral responsibility. Wrongdoers in their model are treated as carriers of dangerous diseases and as such should be preventively detained (or rehabilitated) until they no longer pose a threat to society. Our main concern in this paper is that Pereboom and Caruso adopt an idiosyncratic meaning of quarantine regulations. We highlight a set of important disanalogies between their quarantine model and the quarantine regulations currently adopted in public health policies. More specifically, we argue that the similarities that Pereboom and Caruso propose to substantiate their analogy are not consistent—despite what they claim—with the regulations underlying quarantine as an epidemiological process. We also notice that certain quarantine procedures adopted in public health systems are inadequate to deal with criminal behaviors. On these grounds, we conclude that Pereboom and Caruso should not appeal to the quarantine analogy to substantiate their view, unless they address the issues and criticism we raise in this paper.

Free will, quarantines, and moral enhancements: neuroabolitionism as an alternative to criminal law

“…For example, Corrado (2016) criticizes the incapacitation model for not distinguishing between individuals who are dangerous with or without control (as captured by reasons-responsiveness), for potentially drawing too many people into the criminal justice system, and for the high costs associated with compensating those incapacitated. Moreover, the critique by Levin et al (2023) argues that the authors misunderstand and improperly apply the concept of quarantine, failing to distinguish it accurately from isolation and overlooking significant differences in application and ethical justification between medical and criminal contexts. Additionally, they question the effectiveness of voluntary compliance strategies in crime prevention and the model's ability to deter one-time offenders or those who commit crimes under unique circumstances.…”