stay--via restriction of liberty--to biological behavior control--via surgery, medication, and so forth. However, I think the real issue is the difference in long-term behavior modification of the two approaches. Incarceration under the present system puts prisoners in a system that operates by rules very different to those of the outside world (as heartbreakingly shown in other articles in the issue) and causes the inmate to be trained (modified for the long term) to cope in that environment, leaving them ill-prepared to function "outside" Is it more ethical to maladaptively modify a person purely by environmental factors without crossing the line of intruding on their biology, or to violate their personal biological boundaries in the hope of rehabilitating them for successful reentry into society?
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Article Type:||Letter to the Editor|
|Date:||Nov 1, 2005|
|Previous Article:||Humanist profile.|
|Next Article:||Worth correcting.|