The Return of Lombroso? Ethical Aspects of (Visions of) Preventive Forensic Screening

Abstract

The vision of legendary criminologist Cesare Lombroso to use scientific theories of individual causes of crime as a basis for screening and prevention programmes targeting individuals at risk for future criminal behaviour has resurfaced, following advances in genetics, neuroscience and psychiatric epidemiology. This article analyses this idea and maps its ethical implications from a public health ethical standpoint. Twenty-seven variants of the new Lombrosian vision of forensic screening and prevention are distinguished, and some scientific and technical limitations are noted. Some lures, biases and structural factors, making the application of the Lombrosian idea likely in spite of weak evidence are pointed out and noted as a specific type of ethical aspect. Many classic and complex ethical challenges for health screening programmes are shown to apply to the identified variants and the choice between them, albeit with peculiar and often provoking variations. These variations are shown to actualize an underlying theoretical conundrum in need of further study, pertaining to the relationship between public health ethics and the ethics and values of criminal law policy.

Public Attitudes Towards Moral Enhancement. Evidence that Means Matter Morally

“…People were less supportive of empathy enhancement within the context of prevention of future immoral behaviour as compared to support for empathy enhancement in cases where immoral behaviour (bullying) has already manifested itself. This is of interest for debates on “public health approaches to preventing crime” and growing attention for early identification and prevention of antisocial behaviour [ 54 – 56 ].…”

The Routledge Handbook of the Philosophy and Science of Punishment

“…This danger is particularly pressing, in so far as early ASB-intervention programs apparently target already marginalized, working class families who are likely to experience additional stigmatization and exclusion from wider social communities when they are included in any ASB-prevention program. In their critical appraisal of early prediction and screening, Munthe and Radovic (2015) warn that social exclusion and the restriction of individuals' freedom might even become the premeditated goals of such measures, rather than "merely" their unintended side-effect. This might occur particularly if screening practices develop more rapidly than therapeutic means to change troublesome behaviors.…”

“…Criminal law policies uphold high standards of proof to justify any infringement of individual interests; public health policies, however, are less strict about this and operate on only moderate standards of evidence and proof. It is this specific combination of affecting individual interests and inflicting some burden or harm on individual children and parents while accepting relatively low levels of evidence that has given rise to far-ranging concerns about preemptive screenings with a primarily forensic aim (Munthe & Radovic 2015). Findings about risk-factors are always on a group level, but do not necessarily allow for conclusions about specific individuals, who can be false positives.…”

“…In addition, protective factors can compensate for risk-factors: children who experience behavioral troubles early in life might outgrow them, supported by informal care and education provided by parents, teachers or other significant third persons. Finally, children who are identified by an ASB screening device while no therapeutic or preventive approach is available might face social exclusion, potentially together with their whole family (Munthe & Radovic 2015). The Dutch Centre for Crime Prevention and Safety once clearly warned that "a society in which the precautionary principle predominates comes dangerously close to an authoritarian state" (CCV 2010: 146, translation DH).…”

Forensic practitioners’ expectations and moral views regarding neurobiological interventions in offenders with mental disorders

“…These potential developments have stirred considerable ethical debate on the prospects, threats, and limitations of integrating neurobiological and behavioural genetic interventions in forensic psychiatric practices (Chhangur et al, 2015;Horstkö tter, 2015;Hü bner and White, 2016;Munthe and Radovic, 2015;Pustilnik, 2009;Rose, 2000;Rose and Abi-Rached, 2013).…”