Why only kinda?

I guess they are useful in illustrating that guilt maybe not as black and white as some think. — Jake Tarragon

Yes, examples like that are useful in that sense

Rather it should be determined by the progress the offender makes in recognizing the awfulness of what he has done and that he needs to change and does change — Jake Tarragon

It isn't fair to imprison pedophiles for child abuse, have them complete the prison term, and then consign them to mental hospital confinement indefinitely. — Bitter Crank

(**I meant to post this all a week or two ago but I was busy and forgot)
I agree with both of you. I don't think there is a solution fair to everyone. Tracking an offender's progress in recognizing the awfulness of their action(s) until it is determined that their treatment is no longer needed seems to be the fairest solution. And even that raises questions--How can you be certain an offender is being honest about their understanding of their offense? Should offenders only be released when they feel guilty? If they aren't capable of feeling guilt, like psychopaths, should they even be released? I think it does boil down to preventing such acts before they happen.

I once read of a 60-something-year-old man who had no history of pedophilia. He had begun to make advances on children. He was eventually arrested and jailed. After a couple months of his sentence, he complained of piercing headaches. Eventually he was given an MRI and the doctors discovered he had a brain tumor. Once removed, and after his sentence, he had no interest in children. I can't recall the evidence for this but I remember it was certain. A while later, his pedophilia returned. Shortly after, it was discovered that his tumor had returned. It turns out that brain injuries can alter your personality so much so as to cause pedophilia. A brain tumor made this man a pedophile.

It may be argued that this man could have resisted his temptations for children. And he surely knew that what he was doing was wrong since he hadn't been a pedophile up until the last years of his life. But if he had entire control of his actions, he wouldn't have made advances on children. After all, he had a clean record before these incidents. The fact that he went his entire life without sexually harassing or assaulting a single person suggests that the tumor also switched something else in his mind which caused him to knowingly risk jail time in order to satisfy his urges. Assuming the tumor is the complete determining factor in his pedophilia, which I believe is, and because he had no previous issues with self-control or whatnot, then he cannot be at blame for something he had no control over.

Yes, exactly. The more one consciously chooses an antisocial action, the more blameworthy they are, and therefore the more harsh the punishment should be. The debate really lies, essentially, in how much control one has over their actions, especially when suffering from an anti social mental illness. I don't think neuroscience can tell us enough yet about that balance of power and choice.

Though I agree that proactive measures focusing on the upbringing of someone with a mental health disorder is necessary, and is more effective than any sort of reactive measure, my original question lies in the nature of whether someone with a mental illness who ends up committing a crime is to be blamed. I don't think the will to resist committing crime is strong enough in some cases--due to the fact that the forces in such a person's brain move them to commit the crime.

A willingness to try to understand one another.

I meant to post this in ethics, but I suppose it also fits in this category. Oh well