The Public Health-Quarantine Model

Abstract

One of the most frequently voiced criticisms of free will skepticism is that it is unable to adequately deal with criminal behavior and that the responses it would permit as justified are insufficient for acceptable social policy. This concern is fueled by two factors. The first is that one of the most prominent justifications for punishing criminals, retributivism, is incompatible with free will skepticism. The second concern is that alternative justifications that are not ruled out by the skeptical view per se face significant independent moral objections (Pereboom 2014: 153). Despite these concerns, I maintain that free will skepticism leaves intact other ways to respond to criminal behavior-in particular incapacitation, rehabilitation, and alteration of relevant social conditions-and that these methods are both morally justifiable and sufficient for good social policy. The position I defend is similar to Derk Pereboom 's (2001, 2013, 2014), taking as its starting point his quarantine analogy, but it sets out to develop the quarantine model within a broader justificatory framework drawn from public health ethics. The resulting modelwhich I call the public health-quarantine model (Caruso 2016(Caruso , 2017a)-provides a framework for justifying quarantine and criminal sanctions that is more humane than retributivism and preferable to other non-retributive alternatives. It also provides a broader approach to criminal behavior than Pereboom's quarantine analogy does on its own since it prioritizes prevention and social justice.

Common Problems! and Common Solutions? — Teaching at the Intersection Between Public Health and Criminology: A Public Health Perspective

“…According to the World Health Organization's (WHO) Commission on the Social Determinants of Health (CSDH), the social determinants of health are the conditions in which people are born, grow, work, live, and age, and the wider set of forces and systems (economic policies and systems, social policies, social norms, developmental agendas, and political systems) shaping the conditions of their daily lives [21][22]. Some have argued that these determinants are root causes of criminal behavior/crime [23][24][25][26][27]. For instance, Caruso argues that when public health institutions identify and act on the social determinants of health to address health inequalities (and inequities), this should mean equally identifying the social determinants of criminal behavior (SDCBs) to reduce crime and improve public safety [24].…”

“…Some have argued that these determinants are root causes of criminal behavior/crime [23][24][25][26][27]. For instance, Caruso argues that when public health institutions identify and act on the social determinants of health to address health inequalities (and inequities), this should mean equally identifying the social determinants of criminal behavior (SDCBs) to reduce crime and improve public safety [24]. Furthermore, he lists poverty, socioeconomic status, abuse and domestic violence, housing, mental illnesses and health care, education, the environment, and nutrition, as well as neuroscience and psychopathy, as the main common social determinants [24].…”

“…Applying a social determinants perspective to criminal behavior and crime entails introducing the notion that there are social inequalities (and inequities) in crime, which means that there are differences (i.e., a social gradient) in the distribution of the material conditions and other factors that contribute to criminal behavior and crime, and that some of these differences are unjust and unfair [23]. Therefore, inequalities that are unjust and unfair (i.e., inequities) can be tackled by joint prevention and intervention programs addressing inequalities and inequities in health and crime [24].…”

Free Will Skepticism and Its Implications: An Argument for Optimism

“…The first is to develop a philosophical account of punishment or incapacitation consistent with free will skepticism that adequately deals with proportionality. Here, skeptics have offered a number of different accounts-see, for example, Caruso (2016Caruso ( , 2017aCaruso ( , 2019, Pereboom (2001Pereboom ( , 2014, Pereboom and Caruso (2018), Vilhauer (2013), and Corrado (2013). My own preferred alternative for addressing criminal behavior is called the public health-quarantine model.…”

“…For a full defense of the public health-quarantine model see(Caruso 2016(Caruso , 2017a(Caruso , 2019Pereboom and Caruso 2018;Pereboom 2001Pereboom , 2014.…”